Michigan considers $10 minimum wage

[New Rogernomics]

Well the free market model (the uncorrupted one) has no taxation, tarrifs or monopolies (so no government or corporate entities); today it is just hybrid systems fighting it out.

I am just saying its not how much one taxes that decides social equality but also how that money is spent. Here in the UK we are spending it in the wrong way as is the US. In Oceania they are spending a lesser amount far more wisely.

Well lower taxes are good for a while, then they just become the standard tax rate. The UK never resolved the major flaws in its economy, nor did the US; whereas Oceania corrected most of those flaws in the 1970s-80s when the European Economic Community bared market access forcing reform.

[Agymnum]

The USA wasn't founded for the "Happy Happy Welfare Socialist States". It was founded on the ideas of Liberalism. NOT Social Liberalism. Just plain liberty. FDR took the private sector and broke it over his knee, and ran for president three times. He broke the whole "let's not have kings" thing Washington came up with. I consider him a horrible leader compared to just about anyone other than his fellow authoritarian contemporaries.

So he's better than Reagan and Bush, right?

Right?

[The New Sea Territory]

I dunno, Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan were pretty damn Authoritarian. And FDR was, you know, not.

I'm seeing this trend. Anything progressive MUST be authoritarian, and anything conservative must not be.

Examples of "authoritarians": TR, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Clinton

Examples of "freedom-loving GODDAMN PATRIOTS": Jackson, Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr.

I'm not a conservative. I'm leaning anarchist.

I dislike most US presidents. A few had some good perks, but that's about it. The Bushs were bad. Reagan was below average. So was Clinton. BAck to topic:

Both Conservative and Progressive ideals are authoritarian. Neither advocates a free market or social policy. One is all about equality and the other is uber-security/forced morality.

[Frisivisia]

I have nothing to say to this statement.

FDR expanded opportunities for African Americans in the New Deal, he employed women in the executive branch, he lowered unemployment, and he successfully orchestrated America's victorious homefront.

If you believe him to be a mockery of this nation, your intellect must be on-par with chimpanzees*.

*Apologies to all chimps in advance

The USA wasn't founded for the "Happy Happy Welfare Socialist States". It was founded on the ideas of Liberalism. NOT Social Liberalism. Just plain liberty. FDR took the private sector and broke it over his knee, and ran for president three times. He broke the whole "let's not have kings" thing Washington came up with. I consider him a horrible leader compared to just about anyone other than his fellow authoritarian contemporaries.

The fact that you want so much to stick to the US's founding principles shows how stuck your ideas are in the eighteenth century.

[Sibirsky]

Why do you hate the poor?

You are hurting those worst off.

How am I hurting them?

I never said I wouldn't put price caps. I'm not stupid enough to just raise wages and let inflation happen.

Look mate, you cannot force (at least not yet) businesses to pay more for labor than they can afford, based on revenue from those employees.

If I have a whole bunch of minimum wage guys working for, say I am paying them $7.

All of them generate more than $7 for me, or they would not have their jobs. Some generate $15 or more. I am keeping and promoting these guys.

Some more generate $11-$12. Keepers.

Some are only generating $8-$10.

Minimum wage goes up to $10. You expect me to pay some guy $2 an hour out my pocket as an act of charity? What?

And the least productive, the worst off employees are the ones that get hurt by these policies.

[Frisivisia]

I'm seeing this trend. Anything progressive MUST be authoritarian, and anything conservative must not be.

Examples of "authoritarians": TR, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Clinton

Examples of "freedom-loving GODDAMN PATRIOTS": Jackson, Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr.

I'm not a conservative. I'm leaning anarchist.

I dislike most US presidents. A few had some good perks, but that's about it. The Bushs were bad. Reagan was below average. So was Clinton. BAck to topic:

Both Conservative and Progressive ideals are authoritarian. Neither advocates a free market or social policy. One is all about equality and the other is uber-security/forced morality.

Look who's edgy.

[Frisivisia]

How am I hurting them?

I never said I wouldn't put price caps. I'm not stupid enough to just raise wages and let inflation happen.

Look mate, you cannot force (at least not yet) businesses to pay more for labor than they can afford, based on revenue from those employees.

If I have a whole bunch of minimum wage guys working for, say I am paying them $7.

All of them generate more than $7 for me, or they would not have their jobs. Some generate $15 or more. I am keeping and promoting these guys.

Some more generate $11-$12. Keepers.

Some are only generating $8-$10.

Minimum wage goes up to $10. You expect me to pay some guy $2 an hour out my pocket as an act of charity? What?

And the least productive, the worst off employees are the ones that get hurt by these policies.

I see your hypothetical and raise you actual data.

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5412

[Agymnum]

I'm seeing this trend. Anything progressive MUST be authoritarian, and anything conservative must not be.

Examples of "authoritarians": TR, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Clinton

Examples of "freedom-loving GODDAMN PATRIOTS": Jackson, Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr.

I'm not a conservative. I'm leaning anarchist.

I dislike most US presidents. A few had some good perks, but that's about it. The Bushs were bad. Reagan was below average. So was Clinton. BAck to topic:

Both Conservative and Progressive ideals are authoritarian. Neither advocates a free market or social policy. One is all about equality and the other is uber-security/forced morality.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a bit of redistribution so the poor don't have to starve to death.

We're not saying the rich should have the same income as the poor. We're saying the poor should be helped with tax and employment policies which might slightly hurt the rich (only two mansions instead of three) and would considerably help the poor (actually being able to buy food and have a place to live).

But, you know, fuck poor people.

[The New Sea Territory]

The USA wasn't founded for the "Happy Happy Welfare Socialist States". It was founded on the ideas of Liberalism. NOT Social Liberalism. Just plain liberty. FDR took the private sector and broke it over his knee, and ran for president three times. He broke the whole "let's not have kings" thing Washington came up with. I consider him a horrible leader compared to just about anyone other than his fellow authoritarian contemporaries.

So he's better than Reagan and Bush, right?

Right?

No. I'm not here to rank on how bad all the shit presidents we've had are. I'm here to talk about the Great Depression, which you acclaim was fixed by Comrade FDR. No. It was fixed by the massive demands of industry from WW2's escalation. That's what got women in the factories, and African Americans! They didn't go of to war! Same thing Hitler did to fix his unemployment: make a large army.

[Welstonia (Ancient)]

The USA wasn't founded for the "Happy Happy Welfare Socialist States". It was founded on the ideas of Liberalism. NOT Social Liberalism. Just plain liberty. FDR took the private sector and broke it over his knee, and ran for president three times. He broke the whole "let's not have kings" thing Washington came up with. I consider him a horrible leader compared to just about anyone other than his fellow authoritarian contemporaries.

So he's better than Reagan and Bush, right?

Right?

Social liberty is freedom no?

[New Rogernomics]

An economic [system] can only support so much taxation and public spending.

Then gas the un(der)employed. We would have no labor problems then, I assume, and no welfare-warfare state to pay for.

Given that every news station tells me that the only two things that matter in an economy are employment and the stock market, we'd all be rich, right?

Actually welfare states function most effectively with low unemployment and become unsustinable with very high unemployment i.e. like is happening in Greece,etc. There are nations with zero or negliable unemployment, but there will always be periods of unemployment since we have state economics.*

*Non-state economies would have voluntary (or open) communities with different economic models; and with no force to compel people to pay tax, work or contribute there would be no standard model of unemployment like today.

[Frisivisia]

So he's better than Reagan and Bush, right?

Right?

No. I'm not here to rank on how bad all the shit presidents we've had are. I'm here to talk about the Great Depression, which you acclaim was fixed by Comrade FDR. No. It was fixed by the massive demands of industry from WW2's escalation. That's what got women in the factories, and African Americans! They didn't go of to war! Same thing Hitler did to fix his unemployment: make a large army.

War is good for the economy because it's mass spending in a short amount of time. Which is, you know, good for the economy in the short term.

[Agymnum]

So he's better than Reagan and Bush, right?

Right?

Social liberty is freedom no?

Our good friend here seems to think "comrade" FDR was a socialist hell-bent on destroying America.

Despite the fact that, you know, American socialists claim that the only thing FDR ever did for socialism was "carry it out on a stretcher".

[Imperiatom]

What is it with you and bragging about how wealthy your father is? Are you Draco Malfoy?

It's part of why I'm inclined to believe him (aside from all of his bravado being completely and totally irrelevant), if you were going to make shit up you'd at least pretend to be self made or something instead of just handed the business and then acting entitled.

But, it still just doesn't matter. It doesn't. All the stories about his prep school friends and his weird fantasies about what he would do...none of it matters because we have studies that show that he doesn't, that most businesses do not behave like him, that employment increases and the inflationary effects are barely perceptible if at all. We can take his word for it all day long, he's in so much of a minority that he doesn't even slow down the train.

The fact that the only response he ever has to this shit is to brag some more like this time it might be convincing is an ever growing pile of evidence that he's got nuthin'.

Actually i did recently buy about six months ago some railroad stocks as you yanks call them. Most businesses aim to profit maximize, that's all i need to say, raising prices as a response to an increase in the minimum wage is an important and effective tool in my arsenal.

[Sibirsky]

So public works like the TVA and the construction of hospitals, schools, and airports are "nothing productive".

Please, tell me more about how you are SO knowledgeable about the New Deal.

Constructions that did nothing to big. Seriously, they were filler jobs. They just paid people little money for meaningless jobs doing labor. They didn't stimulate anything. WW2 did the stimulating.

No, it didn't. All WWII did was reduce unemployment.

Tends to happen when you send a bunch men to Europe and the Pacific to fight, and women to build planes, bombs and tanks

But life was not an improvement. The civilians at home their food rationed, and consumer choices limited. Life was measurably worse, even if you had no loved ones fighting in the war.

[The New Sea Territory]

I'm not a conservative. I'm leaning anarchist.

I dislike most US presidents. A few had some good perks, but that's about it. The Bushs were bad. Reagan was below average. So was Clinton. BAck to topic:

Both Conservative and Progressive ideals are authoritarian. Neither advocates a free market or social policy. One is all about equality and the other is uber-security/forced morality.

There's nothing wrong with wanting a bit of redistribution so the poor don't have to starve to death.

We're not saying the rich should have the same income as the poor. We're saying the poor should be helped with tax and employment policies which might slightly hurt the rich (only two mansions instead of three) and would considerably help the poor (actually being able to buy food and have a place to live).

But, you know, fuck poor people.

I live in an apartment, and don't make much money. I'm not some "Fatcat Banker" or whatever you leftists call them. I'm actually someone who would probably support your ideology from first glance. But I understand that history ALWAYS repeats itself.

[Frisivisia]

Social liberty is freedom no?

Our good friend here seems to think "comrade" FDR was a socialist hell-bent on destroying America.

Despite the fact that, you know, American socialists claim that the only thing FDR ever did for socialism was "carry it out on a stretcher".

If the Great Depression had gone on longer and people had felt the sting of poverty longer, communism would have had a better shot.

[Welstonia (Ancient)]

No. I'm not here to rank on how bad all the shit presidents we've had are. I'm here to talk about the Great Depression, which you acclaim was fixed by Comrade FDR. No. It was fixed by the massive demands of industry from WW2's escalation. That's what got women in the factories, and African Americans! They didn't go of to war! Same thing Hitler did to fix his unemployment: make a large army.

War is good for the economy because it's mass spending in a short amount of time. Which is, you know, good for the economy in the short term.

Yeah, you run the danger of getting a war based economy, where you have to continue war or massive military spending in order to maintain the economy. Sound familiar...

[The New Sea Territory]

Social liberty is freedom no?

Our good friend here seems to think "comrade" FDR was a socialist hell-bent on destroying America.

Despite the fact that, you know, American socialists claim that the only thing FDR ever did for socialism was "carry it out on a stretcher".

If you are that left wing, I'm calling you socialist. I don't give a shit.
And No. Liberty is Liberty. Both Social and Economic.

[Agymnum]

Our good friend here seems to think "comrade" FDR was a socialist hell-bent on destroying America.

Despite the fact that, you know, American socialists claim that the only thing FDR ever did for socialism was "carry it out on a stretcher".

If the Great Depression had gone on longer and people had felt the sting of poverty longer, communism would have had a better shot.

If anything I'm a bit annoyed that FDR's policies actually reduced unemployment. Otherwise we might be living in a glorious socialist/communist state - the first one ever with actual political freedoms (you know, unlike the USSR and China under Mao).

[Frisivisia]

Constructions that did nothing to big. Seriously, they were filler jobs. They just paid people little money for meaningless jobs doing labor. They didn't stimulate anything. WW2 did the stimulating.

No, it didn't. All WWII did was reduce unemployment.

Tends to happen when you send a bunch men to Europe and the Pacific to fight, and women to build planes, bombs and tanks

But life was not an improvement. The civilians at home their food rationed, and consumer choices limited. Life was measurably worse, even if you had no loved ones fighting in the war.

That's the price of total war. However, the post-war period was incredibly prosperous because all of the GIs were home, educated, and with money and jobs created from the stimulation of the economy via the government.

[Welstonia (Ancient)]

Our good friend here seems to think "comrade" FDR was a socialist hell-bent on destroying America.

Despite the fact that, you know, American socialists claim that the only thing FDR ever did for socialism was "carry it out on a stretcher".

If you are that left wing, I'm calling you socialist. I don't give a shit.
And No. Liberty is Liberty. Both Social and Economic.

So obvoiusly you would support social reforms like gay marriage and drug legalization no?

[Agymnum]

Our good friend here seems to think "comrade" FDR was a socialist hell-bent on destroying America.

Despite the fact that, you know, American socialists claim that the only thing FDR ever did for socialism was "carry it out on a stretcher".

If you are that left wing, I'm calling you socialist. I don't give a shit.
And No. Liberty is Liberty. Both Social and Economic.

If you don't give a shit, why the fuck are you debating on a political forum?

Start giving a shit, or maybe we should start classifying you as "that edgy guy who doesn't know dick about politics and real life".

[The New Sea Territory]

War is good for the economy because it's mass spending in a short amount of time. Which is, you know, good for the economy in the short term.

Yeah, you run the danger of getting a war based economy, where you have to continue war or massive military spending in order to maintain the economy. Sound familiar...

Yeah. It's call the modern neo-liberal democracy of the USA. We depend on all this...well...shit....to keep us going. Military, Printing Money, Corporate partnership....

[Sibirsky]

It only worked to reduce unemployment, nothing more.

Because reducing unemployment is SO BAD, am I right?

Let those worthless bastards rot in the street!

Will you watch your fucking tone with me?

Reducing unemployment by killing over 60 million people and causing immeasurable injury and property damage is bad, yeah.

You support it, which means, using your own bullshit fucking "debate" tactics, I can now claim that you support global genocide.

Sick fuck.