Author Topic: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply  (Read 17012 times)

Offline Colanth

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2013, 03:11:24 PM »
Quote from: "Xerographica"
Quote from: "Colanth"
As I said, people who don't understand economics shouldn't talk about it.
Do you know what it means for resources to be efficiently allocated?
It means that we'd have to reprogram the species.

Do you understand the difference between theory and reality?  In theory the concept of a minimum wage is ridiculous.  In reality, in a freely-capitalistic environment, it's mandatory.  (Unless the capitalists are suicide-prone.)
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2013, 03:18:47 PM »
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "Xerographica"
Getting rid of minimum wages will provide the masses with even more value
And higher taxes (or more crime) - which will leave them with less money to spend.

The wealthy eliminate the spending class at their own peril.  How many poor people jumped out of windows in 1929?  How many wealthy people did?  (By October 1929, the wealthy had pretty much eliminated the spending class.)

It's kind of a myth that a lot of people committed suicide, expecially by jumping out of windows, in 1929. It seems to be based on one incident.
Atheists are not anti-Christian. They are anti-stupid.--WitchSabrina

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2013, 03:48:48 PM »
There is a way to have our capitalistic cake and eat it too. If we agree that everyone should have a minimum income, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have to get it all from employers. Every adult could have a base income of, say, $10,000 a year tax free; and no minimum wage. Employers would provide wages based on the usual considerations, like 'will people qualified to do this job do it for this much money?' Note that with this guaranteed income, you could have an income of $20,000 a year with a job that pays less than 5.00 an hour.

It would be very expensive and taxes would have to be raised considerably (at least +20%, I'm guessing) to pay for it; but you would get a pure market wage system similar to Hong Kong's. The middle class would find their take-home pay not much affected (they make $10,000 more on paper but pay it back out in taxes), while business owners and investors might come out ahead from lowered labor costs.

The thing is, automation is going to make unemployment endemic anyway. Tasks that have traditionally been automation-proof like labor and customer service are becoming less and less so. We're going to need some kind of cushion to transition to an economy. My suggestion is off the top of my head, the point is that we're going to have to find a different way to skin this cat at some point. It could be a good thing, if we're smart enough to make it good.
Atheists are not anti-Christian. They are anti-stupid.--WitchSabrina

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2013, 04:05:08 PM »
Just to add another 2 cents.

Xerographica wrote in part:
Quote
This is how and why markets work. It's not the 1% that decides one day that they are going to be the 1%...it's the 99% who chooses them. It's the masses of self-interested consumers with their diverse and unique preferences and circumstances.
That would be great, if that was how it actually worked.  The 1% er's get favored deals and manipulate congress to get richer.  They also collude together to get more money without adding any value to the system.  Study up on the housing crash and what really caused it.  It was not caused by the people who ended up loosing their houses due to foreclosure.

Xerographica also wrote in part:
Quote
Do you know what it means for resources to be efficiently allocated?
Please explain.  Because I really wonder if you do.  

Many people don't know that Mexico is a rich nation.  They have more billionaires per capita than any other nation on Earth.  They are also considered a third world nation because of the life style which most of the people are forced to endure.  Mexico also has a high kidnapping rate as well.  Does anyone besides me remember the civil war in Chiapas?  Look into it and tell me how the 99% er's in Chiapas voted with their pesos.

Colanth wrote in part:
Quote
Do you understand the difference between theory and reality? In theory the concept of a minimum wage is ridiculous. In reality, in a freely-capitalistic environment, it's mandatory. (Unless the capitalists are suicide-prone.)
All us poor people want is a decent chance to live.  While most of the 1% er's couldn't care less if we lived or died.  They have more money than they could spend on themselves and their family in their lifetimes. Yet, they want more money.  It seems to just be a game to them, and money are the points to be gotten.  Damn the peons if they don't like it.  They'll just use their influence to have the peasants killed.  Just like they did in Chiapas.  But, if we are going to die anyway, we will at least try to thin the numbers of the Praetorian Guards of the rich.

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2013, 04:08:37 PM »
Markets operate less efficiently when an oligarchy can influence the government. Which company can get the most favorable terms from the government is not based on which can offer the best product for the most reasonable cost.

There's a lot broken where business and government meet.
Atheists are not anti-Christian. They are anti-stupid.--WitchSabrina

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2013, 05:40:23 PM »
LikelyToBreak and Mister Agenda...if I was in favor of crony capitalism...then I wouldn't advocate that taxpayers be allowed to choose where their taxes go.   If pragmatarianism was truly more beneficial for the crony capitalists...then tax choice would have far more than 28 likes on facebook.  

Did you guys ever read Calvin and Hobbes? In one strip Calvin is happily pounding nails into the coffee table..."WAP, WAP WAP". His mother walks into the room and screams "Calvin what are you doing to the coffee table?!?". He takes a second and replies, "Is this some sort of trick question or what?"

Clearly Calvin derived utility from how he was using society's limited resources...and clearly his mother did not.

What you two fail to grasp and understand...is the importance of being able to give others feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.  Yet, I'm sure that you appreciate that some people really should be in jail...right? You agree that it's a more efficient allocation of resources when murderers and arsonists are in jail. Why? Because we really do not value how they used society's limited resources.

So it's a given that some people are "better" at using society's limited resources than other people. And who defines "better"? Other people...consumers.  If we want to maximize the value that we derive from society's limited resources...then it's essential that we allocate resources according to how effectively people are using them. This means giving people the freedom to give other people feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.

Wages, given that they are the price of labor, are simply positive feedback. And there should absolutely not be a ceiling or a floor when it comes to positive feedback. Dictating how much positive feedback consumers should give will always reduce the amount of value that we, as a society, derive from our limited resources. Why? Because minimum wages are false values...they are lies. When you input lies into the equation which determines how society's resources are used...it's a given that the output will be garbage. Garbage in, garbage out. Pseudo-demand, pseudo-supply.

Mister Agenda, yes, you could certainly give each adult $10,000 a year tax free.  You could also give me $1 billion dollars.  What would happen if you gave me one billion dollars?  Well...I'd have far far far far far more influence over how society's limited resources were used.  Here in California there would be orchids on all the trees and all over the country there would be advertisements for tax choice.  

The amount of influence somebody has over how society's limited resources are used shouldn't be arbitrarily determined...it should be determined by other people.  If I come up with some invention that makes millions and millions of people's lives that much better...then yes, by all means, I should have far more influence over how society's limited resources are used.  Why?  Because millions and millions of people are better off as a result of how I used society's limited resources.  They vouched for me.  They made sacrifices to me.

Equalizing influence is arguing that we are equally effective at using society's limited resources.  This is far far far from the case.  So if you do so, it's a given that society, as whole, will be significantly worse off.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2013, 09:42:07 PM »
Quote from: "Xerographica"
LikelyToBreak and Mister Agenda...if I was in favor of crony capitalism...then I wouldn't advocate that taxpayers be allowed to choose where their taxes go.   If pragmatarianism was truly more beneficial for the crony capitalists...then tax choice would have far more than 28 likes on facebook.  

Did you guys ever read Calvin and Hobbes? In one strip Calvin is happily pounding nails into the coffee table..."WAP, WAP WAP". His mother walks into the room and screams "Calvin what are you doing to the coffee table?!?". He takes a second and replies, "Is this some sort of trick question or what?"

Clearly Calvin derived utility from how he was using society's limited resources...and clearly his mother did not.

What you two fail to grasp and understand...is the importance of being able to give others feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.  Yet, I'm sure that you appreciate that some people really should be in jail...right? You agree that it's a more efficient allocation of resources when murderers and arsonists are in jail. Why? Because we really do not value how they used society's limited resources.

So it's a given that some people are "better" at using society's limited resources than other people. And who defines "better"? Other people...consumers.  If we want to maximize the value that we derive from society's limited resources...then it's essential that we allocate resources according to how effectively people are using them. This means giving people the freedom to give other people feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.

Wages, given that they are the price of labor, are simply positive feedback. And there should absolutely not be a ceiling or a floor when it comes to positive feedback. Dictating how much positive feedback consumers should give will always reduce the amount of value that we, as a society, derive from our limited resources. Why? Because minimum wages are false values...they are lies. When you input lies into the equation which determines how society's resources are used...it's a given that the output will be garbage. Garbage in, garbage out. Pseudo-demand, pseudo-supply.

Mister Agenda, yes, you could certainly give each adult $10,000 a year tax free.  You could also give me $1 billion dollars.  What would happen if you gave me one billion dollars?  Well...I'd have far far far far far more influence over how society's limited resources were used.  Here in California there would be orchids on all the trees and all over the country there would be advertisements for tax choice.  

The amount of influence somebody has over how society's limited resources are used shouldn't be arbitrarily determined...it should be determined by other people.  If I come up with some invention that makes millions and millions of people's lives that much better...then yes, by all means, I should have far more influence over how society's limited resources are used.  Why?  Because millions and millions of people are better off as a result of how I used society's limited resources.  They vouched for me.  They made sacrifices to me.

Equalizing influence is arguing that we are equally effective at using society's limited resources.  This is far far far from the case.  So if you do so, it's a given that society, as whole, will be significantly worse off.

Like Halliburton, and union Carbide, and British Petroleum, to name but a few.
???  ??

Offline the_antithesis

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2013, 11:50:08 PM »
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"
Quote from: "the_antithesis"
What the fucking fuck are you talking about?

He appears to think wages that are unsufficient to make a living, let alone raise your kids to have any chance in society... are too high.

Ah. So it's more wank again.

Got it.

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2013, 12:23:46 AM »
Quote
Equalizing influence is arguing that we are equally effective at using society's limited resources. This is far far far from the case. So if you do so, it's a given that society, as whole, will be significantly worse off.

Let's look at history for a minute.  During WWII, the veterans were given the G.I. Bill which enabled them to go to college.  This bill was done away with in the 80's and replaced with a piece of crap matching funds bill.  But, at any rate, the G.I.'s came back to from the war and went to school.  The 50's and 60's had a huge amount of growth American scientific achievements.  While not completely equalizing society's resources, it did help to make a better place for everyone.  

Now with the cost of education and housing having skyrocketed, less lower income families are able to get their kids through college.  Which is okay, because the corporations have sent the jobs overseas, where labor is cheaper.  Despite the fact, that the American worker is the most productive workers in the world.  Primarily due to American automation, but true non-the-less.  

The trouble is, it is not the person who comes up with the good idea or the person being able to make it happen.  It is the financiers which make money out of the air and then lend it at high prices and the speculators who drive up and crash economies who get the money.  Did you realize for instance, that Bank of America had lent $42 for each dollar they actually had, when the housing bubble burst?  And then speculators bought securities on that debt, essentially betting that the loans would be paid back.  When the securities went bad, they went to congress and demanded 750 billion dollars.  Congress, both sides of the congress, as well as the President and future President gladly gave it to them.

I don't see that as equally effective at using society's limited resources.  I see that as highway robbery.  They even threatened that would be riots on Monday, if they didn't get the money by Friday.  I am not making this up.  It happened.

South, Central America and Mexico have a bunch of poor peasants, because the Spanish Crown gave out land grants to their most favored people.  The people living on the land, then had to leave or work for the "landowner."  The landowner maximized profits for himself, without regard to those working for him.  What we have today are countries of the rich and the poor.  No middle class to speak of.  That is where America is headed.  The middle class is diminishing in America, and the rich are getting richer.  

The middle class, have the false hope that they too can become part of the rich class.  But, unless they have government connections, they are doomed to failure.  Because the rich take care of each other.  Yeah, they may get ahead some, but the people really getting ahead are rich people who control where the money goes.

Which is why although not a Libertarian anymore, I'm still libertarian.  Because as long as the government can arbitrarily decide which businesses will make it and which will not, there is no chance for a level playing field.  As Jmpty alluded too.

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2013, 01:30:45 AM »
Quote from: "Xerographica"
So it's a given that some people are "better" at using society's limited resources than other people.

True. The guys who owned slaves are a good example.
Quote from: \"the_antithesis\"
Faith says, "I believe this and I don\'t care what you say, I cannot possibly be wrong." Faith is an act of pride.

Quote from: \"AllPurposeAtheist\"
The moral high ground was dug up and made into a walmart apparently today.

Tornadoes caused: 2, maybe 3.

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2013, 02:21:58 AM »
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "Xerographica"
Quote from: "Colanth"
Xero, the minimum wage has nothing to do with value, it has to do with the least-skilled people either being paid enough to live on directly by their employers or indirectly by their employers.  They're going to be paid the minimum wage, whether there's a minimum wage or not.
A wage is simply a price.
As I said, people who don't understand economics shouldn't talk about it.  It makes no difference whether the employer pays by giving the employee a check or by giving the government additional taxes to make up for the increased welfare, Medicaid, etc. - the employer is paying the same (or more if the government gets involved in the money trail).

Walmart "saves" money by not providing medical insurance or enough wages for employees to buy insurance.  The government pays more for Medicaid and hospitals pay more for indigent care (a hospital can't turn you away, in most states, until it makes sure that you're stable - even if you have no insurance and no money). And many Walmart employees are on welfare and or collect food stamps.
Well, just a thought, but what does that say about welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and even mandatory medical care in hospitals?  Are these unquestionable givens that require a government mandated minimum wage?  I really don't know either way, but it seems short-sighted to assume that these factors are absolute necessities, especially in their current states.  Perhaps these other variables should be questioned as well.

Offline Shiranu

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2013, 04:26:33 AM »
Quote
Why would the masses riot when they could simply evenly distribute their money? They could simply stop trying to get the most bang for their buck. They could stop shopping around for the best deals. They could stop trying to get more for less. That would show the 1%. It would also greatly decrease everybody's well being.

Holy fuck, it was like looking through a portal into some crazy alternate reality where having less money means you have more money!

*cue X-Files theme*

We have people who make less than minimum wage... you know what happens? The state has to pay for them, otherwise they wouldn't have the means to stay healthy enough to be productive.
Quod est inferius, est sicut quod est superius.
Et quod est superius, est sicut quod est inferius.

Offline Colanth

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2013, 03:25:37 PM »
Quote from: "Jack89"
Well, just a thought, but what does that say about welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and even mandatory medical care in hospitals?  Are these unquestionable givens that require a government mandated minimum wage?  I really don't know either way, but it seems short-sighted to assume that these factors are absolute necessities, especially in their current states.  Perhaps these other variables should be questioned as well.
No, they're not mandatory - if you don't mind if people die from starvation, exposure and curable illnesses.  But if that's the case why do we need civilization at all?  Only to assure that the 1% get richer?
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #28 on: August 03, 2013, 09:16:07 PM »
Quote from: "Colanth"
Quote from: "Jack89"
Well, just a thought, but what does that say about welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and even mandatory medical care in hospitals?  Are these unquestionable givens that require a government mandated minimum wage?  I really don't know either way, but it seems short-sighted to assume that these factors are absolute necessities, especially in their current states.  Perhaps these other variables should be questioned as well.
No, they're not mandatory - if you don't mind if people die from starvation, exposure and curable illnesses.  But if that's the case why do we need civilization at all?  Only to assure that the 1% get richer?
It was actually a serious question, the sarcasm wasn't necessary.  No matter, you answered my question.  By the way, I'm pretty sure civilization predates medicaid and food stamps.

Offline AllPurposeAtheist

Re: Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply
« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2013, 12:04:35 AM »
I didn't see that a sarcasm. It snapped things back to reality instead of the OP's fixation on some warped Orwellian world'. Poverty is rich, the rich should be pittied and adored both equally.
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk