Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

That's all you have? Reference to how minimum wages actually aid exchange and reduce unemployment, shifting labour markets closer to a competitive ideal? That's rather pathetic...

Not according to exchange theory and empirical evidence. You can't actually refer to any calls for aggression, can you?

 

Now I question your reading comprehension. You asked for an example of your calls for aggression against peaceful people and I have already provided an example.

I will repeat myself one more time: You call for aggression against peaceful people who pay people to perform tasks. You call for them to be aggressed against if they don't pay what you want them to pay.

If you cannot understand after having been told twice, then there's not much point in having a discussion. Let's see if that's the case...

 

And, as I said, you only demonstrated your hypocrisy. Your argument is basically as follows...

"You support something that actually increases employer-employee matches, such that both parties are made better off. That's sickening!"

Repetition won't help you. Given you demand the destruction of mutually beneficial exchange, you're no fan of freedom. You simply use a false sense of righteousness to ignore your inability to understand economic reality.

Discussion? Chortle, chortle. I asked for 'a call for aggression' that made sense. You haven't been able to achieve that. All that you've informed me is that you don't give a toss about mutually beneficial exchange.

 

Well, you can't say I didn't try. I don't think a third explanation will do any good. Have a nice life.

 

Hahaha! Just like bringiton's "you is evil". All morality rant, hiding from economic argument.

Hopefully you'll learn your lesson and stop making false claims.

 

This is why I don't address him. He doesn't "debate" (for some reason think PF is a debate site), he fails to address points that collapse his arguments and he falsely claims empirical evidence where there is none. He doesn't understand the difference between theory and fact.

Above all this, he doesn't actually understand what actually is the study of economics. Were he focuses on one narrow group of theoreticians because the narrative fits his pre-determined world view, he limits his understanding of the field.

Last of all, in his ignorance he is condescending. IIRC, there is a saying about that.

I removed him from ignore because I like to watch you attempt to educate some of these folks, even the ones I don't think is worth wasting my time. It has been enjoyable watching you to try and expand his understanding, but as the saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water...". Think I'll place him back now.

 

Tut tut, I love folk are forced into making stuff up. I adopt a pluralist approach to economics. I'm not restricted to any single school of thought, from Marxism to the Austrians. Above all, reflecting my business background, I'm interested in practical application. Reference to evidence is key.

And we've seen how inconvenient evidence is. The other fellow wants to enforce the destruction of exchange opportunity. Hypocrisy run amok...

 

And so you're wanting the government of capitalists to change how they govern for capitalists. LOL!!

Take your pick - https://thenextsystem.org/learn/collections/new-systems-possibilities-and-proposals

And so you're wanting the government of capitalists to change how they govern for capitalists.

IOW you can't answer my question.

Taxation has worked for us in the past and it is working for other countries.

Oh! Did the public's standard of living get increased by creating the national debt? -or did big businesses that were "too big to fail" get bailed out and create the debt? Do you and I live better due to the debt, or did the Defense Department allocations and tax cuts for corporations and budgets for government create most of the debt?

You toss out right wing sound bytes seeming to not think about them first.

List examples of cases where that happened. Got none?

So? It's a weak argument for anything but I see no connection with the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Government arises in service to the economy. The economy made this government what it is and so who is the "we" who will change it? Where is the movement to change it? And what will "we" change it to.... -some idealized fantasy of what "free market capitalism" could be that has never existed?

 

No. "Criminal" means it violated established laws, and so then we would need attorneys to take government to court and prosecute it. Or what's your proposal?

 

It certainly acts criminal, in that it commits acts of aggression against peaceful people. Do you agree that those acts of aggression are wrong and ought to be stopped?

 

Make it more specific. I don't like to make blanket statements because they are usually bogus.

 

Okay, I'll give you one specific example out of millions: minimum wage law. A minimum wage law is nothing more than the threat of aggression against peaceful people.

 

We disagree that it is "aggression". The real aggression is in the hogging of the lion's share of the profits by the greedy rich who have left the working class to slide into more and more poverty even though they continue to work faithfully for the greedy rich. THAT is aggression. THAT is violence. THEY are not "peaceful people"!

 

Which reduces unemployment by enabling more mutually beneficial exchanges ...

 

It is an attack (or the threat of attack) on the body and/or property of a peaceful person. How can you not consider that an initiation of aggression?

Actually it's not. Nobody's body or property is being violated.

Actually it's not. Nobody's body or property is being violated.

Of course they are. They've violated nobody's body or property.

 

That's all well and good , If employee incomes and maximizing corporate profits were the only measure of success you may have a point, but there are other considerations.

Employees would receive more but often only if they relocate to a new location with a higher cost of living, their standard of living would actually fall.

Employers would see greater profits from an increase in market share due to less competition from smaller businesses unable to compete with the added minimum wage burden.

 

First, your definition of attack, aggression, and violence is conveniently contrived to suit your need. Secondly, the worker participated in creating the wealth hogged by the employer in my example. There was legal expropriation of that wealth by the employer but there was no fairness because fairness is not legislated. So under capitalist law, he gets away with it and you defend it, even though it is aggression and violence against the worker. To hell with your definitions.

 

Nope. The unemployment effect reflects reduction in market failure associated with monopsonistic power. There is no geographic effect.

You could try and refer to worker preferences. That has led to models based on transportation costs. However, that doesn't predict any reduction in living standards. It just informs us of another means for a firm to offer wages below any notion of a market wage.

There is no evidence of that. As employment has increased, we actually have positive macroeconomic effects which increase demand for SMEs

 

Isn't that what each of us participating in these thread discussions is wanting?

I asked "What 'new' system are you referring to?" and your response is a multitude of different systems. That would appear to be in agreement with what I have been promoting all along, sovereignty initiating with the people comprising each local community, relinquishing ONLY that which they collectively agree upon to bestow upon their State governments and that which can ONLY be administered by a central force to the Federal government.

Same answer as when asked above.

I answered your question.

Some taxation is necessary.

Living beyond your means implies an increased living standard.
And massive and growing public debt necessitates inflation, which makes it more difficult for our young to begin their lives. Examine more closely the numbers I posted earlier, looking at the annual rate of change of each, especially that of income, and homes and then look at some of the other items annual rate of change.

You're claiming we should ignore our debt?

Up until the early 20th century every instance of inflation was offset by periods of deflation.

It was a response to your statement "So then with all the money and all the lobbyists, it's pretty obvious government serves the b biggest capitalists." ALL people expect and demand something in return for their money.

Or a collectivist utopia?

 

NO! I'm no fool. I know that those who comprise "the powers that be" or "oligarchy" and oligopoly are more powerful than you or I can imagine, and they buy what they want including government policy. Wanting and expecting the government to change to what is obviously to us sane and proper governance instead of what works for the powerful, is a fools game and will never happen. I want to do what can be done, with a long-term strategy.

If you read them (the articles are often quite long and intelligently written) you will see that most of them are variations on the theme of socialism and put workers in charge of their workplaces.

If I were to eliminate the vague implications and put that in clear, plain English, would it be....
"Sovereignty initiating with the people comprising each local community, paying only that amount of tax revenue which they collectively agree to pay to the federal government, differing per local community as it may, and only determined and controlled by each sovereign local community"?

Not necessarily.

A good portion of the national debt is due to the bailout of the banks and other big businesses by Obama. That spending increased the living standard of no one because the rich recipients of the windfall were already living "high on the hog".

Why would you say that? That's ridiculous. I'm saying you should go back and correlate my reply to your statement. Our national debt was not incurred to benefit the public.

 

I, on the other hand, only want what should be done, with a long term strategy.

Yes, I noticed that, and I am receptive of socialism as a form of government at the local level with the consent of a super majority of the inhabitants, but much less so at the State level, and not at all at the Federal level.

Sovereignty initiating with each individual citizen comprising each local community, collectively agreeing on the amount they are willing to be taxed by their local government to provide the needs/wants/services they wish to be provided by their local government in addition to what the representatives of local governments in State government collectively agree upon and that which their and their States representatives in Federal government collectively agree to be assessed upon them by their State government proportionate to their States population of the whole population.
Is that more clear? Pretty much what you would find in Article 1, section 8 of our Constitution, and could be achieved simply by repealing the 16th amendment.

Actually, necessarily is the correct answer.

Had the bank bailouts not occurred would there have been a increase in the standard of living of everyone? Personally I would have preferred to allow the failures to occur and suffer the consequences.

But a large portion of the public DOES indeed benefit from the debt government acquires and imposes upon ALL taxpayers both current and future.
What, if anything, do you feel should be done about the Federal debt?

 

I define aggression as the violation of one's body or property. If you find this definition unsuitable, feel free to offer your own.

You're operating under the dis-proven labor theory of value. Hence your incorrect conclusion.

 

There's plenty of empirical evidence in favour of.fhe labour theory of value. Approaches such as Marginal Cost Pricing are found to be more problematic. For example, inconsistent with the approach, most managers/owners surveyed do not report rising marginal costs.

 

Riiiiight. I think I know what that code-wording means.

So you actually think worker ownership and their operation of their workplaces at a local level, plus a mix of such worker ownership and private capitalist ownership at the "state level" (whatever that means), and all private capitalist ownership at the federal level (whatever that would look like!), is possible!! LOL!!!!!! NOT FOR LONG!!!

Oh right, the people will decide how much they want to pay in taxes. You're dreaming.

Nope. You haven't proved that.

Well, that shows how little you understand of this.... -and of what I've said.

You seem to be shy, reluctant, or even ashamed to come right out with your view on this. But combining this with your first comment above and knowing your past utterances my understanding of you is that you are saying a whole lot of "lazy, loafing, parasites" are on welfare and sucking up our tax dollars. But such an idea is bogus BS that reflects not only an ignorance of reality, but a vile contempt for fellow man. But it's up to you to say whether this is, in fact, what you mean and I've wasted my time over.

I feel those who have actually benefitted from the accumulation of the debt, and who are the most able to pay more taxes without it harming their lifestyle at all, should be taxed to the hilt to rebuild an economy that can pay off the debt. Much of the proceeds of the debt was funneled to them to make them more filthy rich, and it's time they paid for their advantages that "we the people" gave them but we don't have.

 

And you are carefully selecting and using words to give yourself the edge. I do not consider the problem to be correctly described as "aggression and violence against people". And we had an argument about LTV that you walked away from when I corrected you on it. Yet you want to use that term and argue that again? Your story is false.