Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

I can understand why you oppose property rights and the right to one's body. I also understand why you oppose the right to freely transfer one's property by contract. Both of those rights undercut the authoritarian desire to use the power of the state to violate the person and property of peaceful people. Authoritarians can't have that now, can you?

 

I don't

Ooo, are you supporting class here? be more honest!

Notice you hid from the quote: "Take, for example, the minimum wage. Don't you blubber about it, despite how it reduces economic rent?"

Why can't you refer to the economics?

 

The minimum wage is a perfect example of your desire to use the power of the state to violate the person and/or property of peaceful people to further your personal agenda.

As I said from the beginning of this thread. I consider the initiation of aggression to be morally unjustified as a means to accomplish my goals.

 

Chortle, chortle! Its a perfect example of how you actually want to coecive. Minimum wages have been found to increase wages and employment. This relfects the nature of coercion in the labour contract.

You have an ideology which is alien to economic reality. You are prepared to see people suffer because of your slavish support for that ideology. You and the other fellow are anti-individualism

 

Yes, as I said, to further your personal agenda, no matter how delusional.

You seem to be the one who wants to use government force to impose suffering. You want to use the government to initiate aggression against peaceful people.

 

The evidence tends to be orthodox labour analysis (I don't have any support for it). Minimum wages increase wages and employment.

You use ideology to hide from economic reality. The minimum wage is a classic example. <Rule 3>

 

No, I'm not buying your argument that it's acceptable to initiate aggression against peaceful people to achieve my desired ends. I'm not convinced. Are you saying that the ends justify the means?

 

How conservative.

The peoples role is in electing candidates to government office who will represent their views. As I have said many times before, the genesis of most all our current problems can be traced back to 1913 with the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments along with the Federal Reserve Act, all of which fundamentally changed how our Federal government operates.
But you continue to assert that capitalism requires growth without an iota of proof to support such a claim.

The 16th amendment, which allows the Federal government to directly tax individuals, without apportionment or regard to any census or enumeration initiated a more centralized economic collectivization of the inhabitants of all the States laying the groundwork for income redistribution.

The 17th amendment basically eliminated the powers, if not the desire of State governments to control Federal spending making the Senate more intent on finding ways to assure greater Federal spending coming home.

The Federal Reserve Act and the fractional reserve banking system resulted in a continuously growing amount of money. Today only about 3% of our money, that which can be held in your hand, is created by government while about 97% has been created by banks.

I didn't say 'those people' are the cause of our problems. Following suit should clearly indicate the causation to have initiated by other than 'those people', although by following suit 'those people' do exacerbate the problem.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him/her drink. In simplest terms, the only point I am trying to make is that unrequited monetary depreciation results in increasing the costs of most everything, most especially that which is finite in existence while it does NOT apply equally to the value of everything, human labour being a primary example.

Yes, I read your comments. I'm still awaiting facts and proof. Capitalism requires growth?

You, not I, introduced the stock market.

Just respond to the words I used.

See what I mean? I never said investing in the stock market is a better choice than getting a college education, but that may not apply to everyone.

I didn't discredit education. And if I've asserted anything at all it would be that there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to solving the problems we and our societies face.

???

You're claiming that "I" want to blame our problems on a tiny percentage of the population? Our Federal government?

 

Semantic squirming does not alter the FACT that anecdotes do NOT equate to FACTUAL DATA.

 

Only in your dreams.

 

You fallaciously alleged that unions had caused businesses to fail and I refuted that by pointing that those exact same businesses using union labor are still going concerns to this day. You could not refute those facts so you threw a hissyfit.

Needless to say you will deny the above but it won't alter the facts documented in the thread.

 

The minimum wage, given monopsonistic power, increases wage wages and employment. Essentially, without it, mutually beneficial exchange is not exhausted. Those against minimum wages are therefore trying to coerce an economic inefficient outcome.

That's the nature of fake libertarianism. Without any understanding of the labour market, it actually demands an increase in coercion. The only question is whether it's deliberate (ie rich elite funding fake libertarianism) or a simple error (ie simple knowledge deficiency).

 

You don't seem to realize that the government does such things for the benefit of capitalism, top corporations, and/or government itself. You should be opposed to those things, not for any of them (capitalism). Let's have a productive conversation. Let's discuss how capitalism evolves from a more "free market" form, to functional monopoly with the government's help and why the government helps.

 

You got two out of three right. It violates capitalism in order to give advantage to certain favorite parties or to itself. Neither of these is a good thing. The government should protect all of our property rights (including our property rights in our bodies), and it should protect our liberty to engage in voluntary, contractual transfers of our property. When it does anything else, it is putting its finger on the scale to give advantage to itself or to favored parties.

Because the government is a sociopathic organization that seeks power and wealth and has the means to acquire those by force because it has widespread societal acceptance by statists.

 

It seems clear you don't know the definition of coerce. Given that, the above statement is irrelevant.

I continue to be unconvinced by your arguments in favor of initiating aggression against peaceful people and their property. So far your only argument seems to be something along the lines of "I think some people will be better off if we all agree to initiate aggression against some peaceful people over here."

Sounds like pretty much every other reason for oppression, torture, slavery, and genocide I've heard uttered in the past.

 

But minimum wage, along with many other regulations, create monopsonistic power.

Monopsonistic power may be more efficient, but it is the monopsonist that gains the most benefit, not the wage earner. In fact, the worker may suffer an even lower standard of living.

 

The power of the state is the only way to protect workers from exploitation. And if not for our history of the owner class exploiting other people, the min wage would not have been needed. No, capitalism does not provide fairness at all, in fact, it is not concerned with it. It is today only concerned with how much profit and income an owner might squeeze out for himself, by being able to exploit labor. Because of US laws, those owners could not exploit americans easily and so they bribed politicians to allow them to exploit the poor overseas or mexico, where even if they had to put up nets to keep their workers from suicide, it was fine. Only maxing out profit matters. It it creates society destruction, so what!! They don't care. Only maxing profits matters.

The exploitation of others for their labor is as old as civilization. We call it good business today.

If not for the base side of human nature, which has reveled in capitalism, there would have never been a need for a min wage. The min wage is a reaction to this very ancient human nature. If you allow exploitation, don't be surprised when exploitation is prolific and rampant.

Yes, at times we have had to have the State protect the weak from the strong, i.e. rich and powerful. That is just our reality. One can of course come up with many reasons why we should not protect the weaker, but that does not negate that necessity is the mother of invention, and that the min wage was to offer some protection for the lower educated from the sharks and wolves. Of course if society, including businessmen were highly moral, and did not place maxing their profits and wealth above human beings, we would have never seen the min wage or any worker protection laws. But we have never been that moral and never will be unless we see an evolution in consciousness. Sad that we have to try and protect the weak from the strong, but that is indeed our reality. Ignoring it solves nothing and only worsens the abuse. Something cons cannot for some reason fathom, nor accept as a basic reality. But then both left and right ideology requires an ignorance and disconnect from the reality we all reside in. Beliefs and values have to ignore reality, in order to hold them.

 

Nope! They reduce the impact. Look at what Thatcher introduced in the 80s. She eliminating minimum wages and increased the use of in-work benefits. It was seen as a supply-side improvement. In reality, it intensified the impact of monopsonistic power. Wage fell and the welfare benefit was effectively redistributed to the employer. Corporate welfare no less!

 

Candidates lie profusely to present themselves falsely as "the people's candidate." And then they do what they want. You know this. People petition and complain and get nothing for it usually. Years later another candidate does the same thing. We are powerless without huge organizations and the government has been diligent in eliminating them. So no, the government is not the answer.

Is that why the health insurance companies are raping us? Is that why college is unaffordable today? Is that why campaign finance laws resist correction and income disparity is out of control?

Ever hear a business report saying "this year the markets have been stagnant, sales were flat, and profits remain the same as last year and so business is doing very well"? I didn't think so. If stock prices remain flat for a corporation, investors will sell their shares and buy those of a competitor. Corporations avoid this like the plague. The entire history of capitalism has been one of growth. Have you ever known of any country with capitalism that didn't grow unless it was failing? I didn't think so.

You seem to favor greater income and wealth inequality by your opposition to taxation.

I don't see the relevance to "people cause all of our problems". And as you said in the opening, "the peoples role is in electing candidates to government office who will represent their views." So by your formula, people can petition their senators to control federal spending. Your complaint is not valid, or at least not consistent. AND most federal spending benefits big corporations. They didn't exist when the Constitution was written, so a change or two were needed when corporations grew large enough. My point is sustained: the problem is corporate in nature, not people.

Big benefit to banks... CORPORATE banks.

Then the problem is not people.

Same for you.

So when you refer to people getting useless education you're not discrediting education. Got it.

 

Sez you. Pure opinion.

That would be your view under a particular form of capitalism. Property rights are not "god-given". They are bestowed upon us by government, and government governs for the economic base. So under our form of capitalism as it has evolved as businesses grew larger and more and more powerful, we have the finger on the scale for the benefit of our system and for that of the biggest corporations. Your "shoulds" are merely your detached opinion.

The government evolves with the economy to serve the most powerful businessmen and provide them advantage..

 

kindergartenish Marxist nonsense of course which is why you won't present you best example.

 

Yep! Look at the US, minimum wages have increased along with other employee benefits, look at the rise of monopsonistic power. Before you are done looking, look at at small town USA, you will find a bunch of shuttered businesses and a lot of old people. Most of the young folks have relocated to major population centers where the monopsonistic powers have a greater dominance of the economic activity, corporate America thrives in the cities.

Business leaders, government, and academia, all know that economy of scale is most efficient at returning greater profits to the owners of that business. It is the social outcomes that are often ignored with the coercion through regulation.

 

The idea that minimum wages increase monopsonistic power is not credible. They reduce it. The only issue is the source. Burdett and Mortensen provide a convincing case on the impact of job search frictions.

You make an error here. Economics of scale refers to monopoly or monopoly power. Nothing to do with monopsony.

 

You use the term exploitation several times in your post. Do you mean the initiation of aggression against the person or property of peaceful people? That's what you want the government to do right? You favor the base side of human nature. The use of club, sword, lance, and gun against otherwise peaceful people in order to achieve your ends.

 

Yes, I agree that the government violates property rights in order to benefit itself and its favorites. You provided good examples: fiat money and the banking system. Perfect examples of violently interfering in the market in order to grant favors to itself and its favorites.

Personally, I think the government should act like all other civilized people. It should respect the person and property of peaceful people.