Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Obama's 'emergency' economic plan


SkinsOrlando

Recommended Posts

You said he is 100% on board. I just posted a VIDEO where it shows the man calling the proposal dumb. Then YOU pointed to something completely unrelated that happened 5 years ago. There is a BIG BIG difference between a tax on dividend income (which is by and large a tax on the rich) and a windfall profits tax (which would mostly fall evenly across income levels).

Your point makes no sense on this topic and everything else is totally off topic.

As you see in the post above, I admit I was wrong. I completely understand the difference between the two types of taxes, as I said before, I was making a point to Buffett's philisophy regarding taxation in general (off topic as it might have been). More to the point of why he is on Obama's economic team which we were talking about before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'll use my stimulus check to invest in Exxon... Any company that makes that much money has to be a winner.

On second thought, I might need to use the check to pay for gas after Exxon raises prices to accommodate the $150-200 Billion of new taxes under Barack Obama's economic "plan". His energy "plan" is a stroke of genius too! I mean, inflating tires... Why didn't anyone else think of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger. I think it just show's Obama's weakness in the area, which is the area I base my vote almost entirely upon. One the other hand, McCain has openly said that he's weak in that area too. Both have offered up retarded ideas like this that way too many people will fall for hook line and sinker.

One calls himself the "Change" candidate, the other the "straight-talk express."

Both are full of ****.

And i think it sucks.

(whats funny is watching people argue over who is MORE full of ****.)

And what is also funny (to me) is that Ron Paul, the great economic alternative, was also totally full of :pooh: in so many of his ideas.

We are never going to have a perfect candidate. That is life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Milton Friedman wrote that over four decades ago, when things were a bit different in this country. Nearly all of the hysterical arguments against the minimum wage have been proven false over time. It is true that a super-high minimum wage would be disaster - but that is not what we have or want.

Uh, no. You are right that many overstate the negative impact of raising the minimum wage, but it is a negative impact none the less.

I guess this is one these irrational beliefs that many liberals have. Conservative have the drilling issue.

Oh and Wilsonian, while I agree with Milton Friedman about letting the market work, the 1900's was not a glory period for capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'll use my stimulus check to invest in Exxon... Any company that makes that much money has to be a winner.

On second thought, I might need to use the check to pay for gas after Exxon raises prices to accommodate the $150-200 Billion of new taxes under Barack Obama's economic "plan".

Exxon has a negative return over the last year FYI, not a bad two yr. or 5 yr. number though :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, no. You are right that many overstate the negative impact of raising the minimum wage, but it is a negative impact none the less.

I guess this is one these irrational beliefs that many liberals have. Conservative have the drilling issue.

Oh, trust me. I understand the arguments. The thing is - if a negative impact is technically real... but so small to be almost immeasurable, does it really matter? Especially if you have a positive social goal that can be accomplished? Raising the minimum wage has not had nearly the impact that its opponents claimed it would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exxon has a negative return over the last year FYI, not a bad two yr. or 5 yr. number though :D

Yeah - the stock price was inflated by speculators.

Exxon is still doing awesomely well, but people were expecting supercalifragilisticexpalidous performance, so the stock price dropped when the announced quarterly profit didn't exceed 12 billion. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah - the stock price was inflated by speculators.

Exxon is still doing awesomely well, but people were expecting supercalifragilisticexpalidous performance, so the stock price dropped when the announced quarterly profit didn't exceed 12 billion. :laugh:

I know, stock prices have less to do with companies financials today more than ever, it is all a big game of perception. Everything is baked into stock prices before it even happens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, trust me. I understand the arguments. The thing is - if a negative impact is technically real... but so small to be almost immeasurable, does it really matter? Especially if you have a positive social goal that can be accomplished? Raising the minimum wage has not had nearly the impact that its opponents claimed it would have.

In some areas of this country, the impact is very real. I am not exactly sure what the positive social goal is. If one of those goals is to mitigate inequality or decent wages, there are better alternatives.

Once again, I agree many have overstated the negative impact of raising the minimum wage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Milton Friedman wrote that over four decades ago, when things were a bit different in this country. Nearly all of the hysterical arguments against the minimum wage have been proven false over time. It is true that a super-high minimum wage would be disaster - but that is not what we have or want.

Err, ok. I myslef do not want a return to a world of one very rich person and 250 starving sweatshop laborers, but that's just me.

I'm simply arguing on principle. The minimum wage laws requires employers to discriminate against people with low skills. No one describes it that way, but that is the truth. If a person's services are worth less than the minimum wage, it is illegal for an employer to hire that person unless he or she is willing to pay charity. Most employers, however, are not in the position to do so.

And the world to which you are referring is one of feudalism, not of capitalism. Nowhere is the gap between the rich and poor larger than in those societies that do not not allow the free market to operate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm simply arguing on principle. The minimum wage laws requires employers to discriminate against people with low skills. No one describes it that way, but that is the truth. If a person's services are worth less than the minimum wage, it is illegal for an employer to hire that person unless he or she is willing to pay charity. Most employers, however, are not in the position to do so.

And the world to which you are referring is one of feudalism, not of capitalism. Nowhere is the gap between the rich and poor larger than in those societies that do not not allow the free market to operate.

You are speaking in abstracts and absolutes.

Economic discussion has moved a bit beyond whether Adam Smith was generally correct. Of course he was. But there are caveats and externalities that are also real, many of them. You are presenting a false choice between pure free markets and complete state control of the economy.

And yes, the minimum wage would have that discriminatory effect if it were high enough. But it isn't, and at the level it currently is at, is has almost no such effect. ON the other hand, the people who actually do that work are much further away from abject poverty when there is a minimum wage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it isn't, and at the level it currently is at, is has almost no such effect.

I'm not so sure about that. The Minimum Wage and the Labor Market is a study from the Cleveland Fed in May of 2007 (so not that long ago).

It does start with this:

New models of employment show that there are some cases in which a minimum wage can have positive effects on employment and social welfare. The effects depend ultimately on the prevailing market wage and the frictions in the market.

But the next sentence is this:

Evidence to date does not support the view that raising the minimum wage will lead to positive employment effects.

and the conclusion is this:

The analysis presented here omits several important elements of actual labor markets. Many empirical studies have sought to quantify the employment effects of a minimum wage. According to David Neumark and William Washer, who surveyed this literature thoroughly, most evidence suggests that a minimum wage leads to greater unemployment. And contrary to popular belief, most evidence suggests that the least-skilled workers are those most likely to be harmed the most.

Greater unemployment and the least skilled workers being hurt the most is not what I'd call a good idea (and is exactly what theory says would happen).

I further speculate that the reason that many of the more severe effects of the minumumn wage that economists predict have not come to pass is that illegal immigrants have been stepping in and filling those jobs for less, blunting the effect on businesses and prices.

Yes, there are some places where illegals make more than the minimum wage, but in those places, the market has already dictated a higher wage, and so the minimum is not needed anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the November 2006 NBER Working Paper by Neumarck and Wascher referenced in the previous article. This is the abstract:

We review the burgeoning literature on the employment effects of minimum wages - in the United States and other countries - that was spurred by the new minimum wage research beginning in the early 1990s. Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few - if any - studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.

Anyone want to pony up $5 for the whole thing? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raising the minimum wage does have an impact. And it is not so small that it is almost "immeasurable." A study by Burkhauser, Couch, and Wittenberg (2000) evidenced that a 10% increase in the minimum wage causes an 8.5% decrease in the employment of African-Americans (aged 16-24). I happen to believe that is significant.

What's more, the minimum wage is going to be raised to $7.25 on July 24, 2009. Certainly, the idea of raising the minimum wage intuitively seems noble, and its proponents are well-intentioned, but ultimately, it is an ineffective tool for fighting poverty. A better alternative would be a negative-income tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are struggling, you think they care if it's socialism?

Yes, they should. In the long run, this type of government means MORE intrusion into the private sector, leading into MORE intrusion into personal finances, leading into MORE intrusion into personal life.

If you really think this is a good idea, I have a REAL LIFE model for you to examine: USSR circa 1953 - 1988. Verrryyyyy nice living conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raising the minimum wage does have an impact. And it is not so small that it is almost "immeasurable." A study by Burkhauser, Couch, and Wittenberg (2000) evidenced that a 10% increase in the minimum wage causes an 8.5% decrease in the employment of African-Americans (aged 16-24). I happen to believe that is significant.

What's more, the minimum wage is going to be raised to $7.25 on July 24, 2009. Certainly, the idea of raising the minimum wage intuitively seems noble, and its proponents are well-intentioned, but ultimately, it is an ineffective tool for fighting poverty. A better alternative would be a negative-income tax.

It is not just African American who are impacted. Young people of all races are affected. Raising the minimum wage means that employers will hire fewer people. The problem with all of these near-sighted actions by the libs is that they can't (or don't) look past the first order affects. They just think that life keeps going on as before and companies will magically just eat the extra costs of these workers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is also funny (to me) is that Ron Paul, the great economic alternative, was also totally full of :pooh: in so many of his ideas.

We are never going to have a perfect candidate. That is life.

Interesting that you make such an errant claim while virtually every thing he said during the campaign has been proven true. He had been warning congress of the danger of straying from the vision of the founders for decades and he was correct in all of them

Bring specific examples of what was full of :pooh: and evidence as to why this is fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is becoming scarier and scarier every day. How dare you make a profit in America. Oil first, then what...pharmaceuticals, retail, etc.

Socialism worked really well to motivate people in the USSR. Why work hard when you know you can profit from it.

Its sad people do not realize what hes doing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that you make such an errant claim while virtually every thing he said during the campaign has been proven true. He had been warning congress of the danger of straying from the vision of the founders for decades and he was correct in all of them

Bring specific examples of what was full of :pooh: and evidence as to why this is fact.

Please. We had 35 threads on this.

You guys give Ron Paul credit for declaraing that the sky is blue, as though no one else has ever noticed.

I keep going back to things like returning to the gold standard, abolishing the EPA, pulling out of the United Nations. That's what Ron Paul means to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raising the minimum wage does have an impact. And it is not so small that it is almost "immeasurable." A study by Burkhauser, Couch, and Wittenberg (2000) evidenced that a 10% increase in the minimum wage causes an 8.5% decrease in the employment of African-Americans (aged 16-24). I happen to believe that is significant.

Yes, and there are other studies that disagree, such as Card and Krueger: Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage (1995).

:whoknows:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to bother to read these studies, but I would argue there are two different increases in the min. wage (as sort of suggested by techboy). There is an increase when nobody is essentially making min. wage anybody. I believe whey they raised the min. wage under Clinton that was the case. Even the McDonalds that was near where I worked was advertising spots at above min. wage. Then there are times when the min. wage is really setting a floor for paying employees for many companies.

I have no doubt that you can get different results by including different min. wages increase in your study, which might even take the form of which years you include (e.g. min. wage increases over the last 50 years might as a collective have different characteristics than those only over the last 20 years).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please. We had 35 threads on this.

You guys give Ron Paul credit for declaraing that the sky is blue, as though no one else has ever noticed.

I keep going back to things like returning to the gold standard, abolishing the EPA, pulling out of the United Nations. That's what Ron Paul means to me.

ignorance is bliss I guess.

He doesnt wish to return to the gold standard, only to legalize a backed currency to compete with the fiat.

the other issues you feel are :poop: simply because you desire big government as most liberals do.

Your specifics are lacking, please try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...