Miscellaneous News. - Page 26

So have I. Tax cuts for the rich. Have not helped the poor one iota, because the rich won't suddenly hire more people just because they have more money, which is the conjecture commonly spread by some not-so-intelligent people. Rich people (and corporations) hire people when they need people. They fire people when they don't need people. It has almost nothing to do with how much cash they have in their bank accounts.

Likewise, I haven't seen anyone on these boards make any such statement.

However, I can say this...

On May 1st, 2011, we can start to observe and measure the effect of raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount. On May first, the minimum wage in Hong Kong goes from zero to HK$28 an hour. Yes, that's substantially less than the amount in the US.

Some people, like you, are predicting doom (well, not so much... just some grumbling from a few corporations that it will cost them money).

There's no doubt that because of this change, some people may lose their jobs. Fortunately, for these mostly old people over 60, Hong Kong has an excellent social safety net.

There's also no doubt that this change will substantially raise the standard of living of a lot of people. The extra money these people earn will go back into the economy, making everybody better off. It will also have the effect of making employee abuse less common. Companies won't be able to get away with hiring cleaners and cooks for slave wages. In Hong Kong, there is a strong work ethic, due mostly to Confucian ideals. There are lots of people who choose to work for low wages because of perception of duty. There are also a lot of employers who take advantage of this.

There will likely be some inflation. It's up to corporations to keep this to minimum by keeping some integrity and not capitalizing on the greater financial mobility of the lower working class. Will they do so? Well... judging by the history of people like Li Ka Shing, no. Park N' Shop will raise prices. Sad, but true. Hopefully, major competitor Wellcome will see this as an opportunity to gain marketshare by keeping prices steady.

But. I have no doubt that raising the minimum wage from zero to HK$28 an hour this Monday will have a net positive effect on a far greater number of people than those who will have their income reduced because of it.

No doubt we'll be seeing a lot of reports, mostly anecdotal, in the aftermath of this change. It will indeed be interesting.

What is a decent wage that people make in your country? referring to IT people, banking tellers, and others?

So those people will go from productively earning a wage to unproductively on the government dole?



There is no doubt at all? Why is that?



I think you don't really understand how this works.



What are "slave* wages?"

*You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



So people who choose to work for a low wage are "slaves?"







There seems to a lot of wishful (and contradictory) thinking in this.



Of course you have no doubt of this. The real question though is whether this lack of doubt has any basis in reality.

I suspect you don't understand how all of this works.



You are correct. But the claim isn't specifically about cash in bank accounts. It's about investment. The rich are greedy (as you claim) and they want to make money (lots of it). They don't make lots of money by sticking in a bank account (or under a mattress or something). They make it by investing...investing in producing things to sell to others...which does create jobs for lots of people and at different parts of the wage spectrum. But, first, they cannot invest what's been taken from them. Second, they won't invest if their returns will be substantially reduced by taxation.

I think you're about 50 years out of date.

The rich today invest their money in buying government lobbyists, hiring accountants to expose tax loop holes, making bets on the markets that governments / businesses are going to default on loans - then downdgrading their credit rating, forcing such, and selling worthless CDO's to Norwegian grannies pension funds.

None of which adds anything of note, no product, no jobs or wealth for anyone - indeed, when they fuck up their gambling, as I recall we have seen lately, they cost jobs, houses and wealth from millions of people.

I appreciate your sentiment dm...MJ, but your economics is soooo last century, and comes from a time when capitalism actually worked for the benefit of the nation.

Todays rich are just parasites.

You are quite right that the governments of the world (and the US in particular) have become so powerful, massive and are extracting so much wealth from the productive sector, that this attracts the attention of those who (rich or not) who wish to get a part of this loot (and power). So yes, some of the rich do spend their money doing this. But the problem here is the massiveness of the government. It has become a desirable target for those who either will not or cannot accomplish what they wish to by voluntary means.

One writer (I forget who) coined the phrases "political entrepreneur" vs. "market entrepreneur". You are describing "political entrepreneurs".



Yes, there is a lot of corruption associated with corporate socialism/corporatism/crony capitalism/state capitalism...whatever terms you would like to apply to what you're describing. I have not, am not and do not defend such things. I am strongly opposed to those things.



You are absolutely correct. The corporate cronyism that exists does not produce wealth, it destroys it. It does not make life better, it makes it worse. Sadly it is fed by the allegedly legitimate level of power that the government claims for itself and then dispenses or uses for the benefit of its friends.



My economics is just fine. It is not outdated as you suggest. And true, free-market capitalism works well for nations, people, etc. Where the confusion exists in the definition of the term "capitalism." Capitalism is a word with much baggage. What I'm referring to is the free economy. Granted there is less and less of that in the US (and some other places also) every year. Economically, the US, specifically, is a mix of socialism, economic fascism and some freedom as well. It is a mixed economy. Furthermore, many of the things that are blamed on alleged laissez-faire are simply the result of muddled thinking.



Well I'd be careful about over-generalizing about "the rich" here. Certainly some are, but many aren't.

We can be more precise by defining as parasites those who live off of wealth, income and production forcibly taken from others. These are typically people who have gone to the government for their gains. There are people all along the range of economic well-being (rich, middle class and poor) and in all areas of the political spectrum (right, left, etc.) who fit this definition.

Funny you should ask. My wife just got hired as a bank teller. She has a Master's Degree in finance and she has prior experience, so even though she had been out of the industry, she was hired for about US$2000 a month. Most entry level tellers get about $1600 or so.

I understand your theories perfectly well. I also suspect that every time you don't have a response, you respond with, 'You don't understand.'

Why don't you explain it, using real world examples of successes that have proven your theories?

It's not so much about my theories as it is about basic economic concepts. Maybe you do understand them but simply don't agree with them. But you have made some statements that cause me to question that you do understand them.

For example:



and



Let's take the second statement first. Your statement here implies that the "extra" money wasn't in the economy before. Really? Where was it? Stuffed in a mattress somewhere? When the new wage rate was mandated did employers simply print up some new money? Where was this "extra" money before?

Now, back to the first claim:


The basic claim here is that a new law requiring a higher wage for some people will "substantially raise the standard of living of a lot of people". Setting aside the vagueness of "substantially" and "a lot"...let's examine the certainty of your expectation.

You appear to be assuming that the total compensation for the individuals covered by this new law will increase. Is that correct? By this do you assume that the total wages and benefits will be higher after this law is in effect?

P.S. For the sake of expediency I'll jump a little ahead with this question: When the price of something rises, what do you generally expect consumers of that thing to do? Buy more or buy less?

I understand this whole distribution of wealth thing is fetish for some, but I'm not really that concerned about nor do I have preference for any particular distribution. The best way I could answer your question is this...

My preferences would be:

1. No one in the world lives in absolute poverty.

2. Everyone is free to pursue as much wealth as they want but must do so using only free and voluntary means and not infringing upon the basic rights of life, liberty and property of others.

3. I believe everyone who lives above a certain comfortable level should be generous and kind to their fellow man, especially in their time of need.

I also believe that #2 is key to achieving #1. And though #3 may never happen to the degree I'd personally like to see, it is more likely to happen as a result of #2.

There are certainly other details in this. But those are my preferences or wishes.

Beyond that, the distribution of wealth doesn't concern me a lot. Someone else being wealthy doesn't make me more poor. Unless...What concerns me is when either wealth is obtained through the government (that kind of wealth accumulation does make us all poorer) or wealth is used to control the government as marcUK pointed out. But that's not a problem of too much wealth per se. That is merely the proximate cause. The ultimate cause is having so much power centralized and vested in one thing...the government...with alleged legitimacy.

Happy to oblige.

Yes, I'm proud to admit I'm an advocate for freedom.

If only we could get those who claim to support freedom...but often don't...to admit to their aggressive, coercive, authoritarian, forceful tendencies.



To be honest it probably doesn't tell you everything. It's possible you may assume some things, maybe incorrectly, based on what I said.



There's a "Ron Paul World?" You're assuming you know something about others based on what I have said about my own preferences and opinions?!?!

It's one thing to want " Freedom ". It's another to support it with real world solutions.

Sorry I must have hit a nerve but since Paul is considered " Fringe " maybe he can guess star on my favorite TV show!

http://www.fox.com/fringe/

Ahhh...the old "I live in the 'Real World'" or "I'm practical" argument.



No. Just marveling at the oddity of this. I don't disagree that he is on the "fringe" today. But that's actually the scary thing.


P.S. I'm not interested in "freedom"...I'm interested in freedom. I think it's you who might only be interested in "freedom."

Oops! Sorry for bringing up reality! I forgot who I was talking with. It's not that some of the things that Libertarians want are bad it's just that there approach really makes a lot of assumptions as far as how things work. In some cases the wrong assumptions as far as people doing the right thing or paying for things. But the rights of the individual or freedom to do what you want I'm all for that. As far as it works within the confines of reality. And reality is something you can't ignore.

You didn't actually bring up reality, you merely claimed that Ron Paul's prescriptions are not in alignment with reality.



So you claim. What's interesting is that's exactly the problem with many of the policy proposals offered by many today: Incorrect assumptions about how the world actually works.



Based on your definition of reality no doubt.



Indeed it isn't. As the actions of recent US political leadership should amply demonstrate.

Like I said sorry I hit a nerve. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about reality as it would be entirely subjective and you would never agree unless we had an end result

And probably not even then.

Like I said...you didn't. I just find your claims interesting. Not convincing mind you, just interesting.



Are you suggesting that you have a more firm and objective grasp of reality?!?!

So what you're saying then, is that wealth is a zero sum game? There can't be more money in the economy that wasn't there before? That sure as hell looks like what you're saying.

The money was there. It just wasn't contributing to the economy in a meanongful way.

To answer your question, there are a substantial number of people who earn less than $28 an hour and have no benefits at all. These people will be helped. There are also measures in place to discourage employers from removing existing benefits. Your view seems to be ignorant of this.


If it's a staple they generally buy the same amount. If it's not a staple, I don't care as much. Nevertheless, competition can help curb inflation. You think companies will raise prices so much that total revenue is reduced?

No. That's not what I'm saying. First, money is not wealth*. But that's discussion for another time. Second, and more importantly, when transactions are conducted voluntarily wealth tends toward a positive-sum game. When transactions are molested by coercion in one way or another, wealth tends toward being, at best, a zero-sum game, but more likely a negative-sum game. Finally, in the situation you described there is no "new" money. There's the same amount of money it's now just being redistributed in a new way. By force. Which, in that case, likely means that wealth will be negative-sum.

*If money were wealth we could just print our way to prosperity (of course this assumes that what everyone calls "money" today actually is money...but that's another story too...). That's never happened in the history of the world.



According to you, based on your values...but evidently not based on the values of the people who owned the money.



Are there measures in place that ensure employers employ the same number of people* at the same number of hours as they did before the new law?

*I note that you admitted earlier some people may actually lose their jobs as a result...but these people will be fine because the government will pay them to be unproductive.



That's not how inflation works. Inflation is an increase in the supply of money and credit. Broadly rising prices are the symptom of this. Changes in prices of individual goods and services are more likely a result in changes in supply and demand.



Where did I say that?!?!

While the debate over whatever rages here, Obama just announced that Bin Laden is dead.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=123616

MJ, let's take Apple, for instance, as a generator of wealth. Do you think that the mere existence of Apple's wealth means that people can buy more iPhones?

Or is the fact that people can afford to buy iPhones the very reason so many have sold, which has made Apple wealthy? If only a few hundred thousand people could afford to buy iPhones, do you think Apple would be as successful?

First of all, this is your conjecture. We have seen no evidence of this happening in the real world. Secondly, I ask again, what's more important? Wealth generation amidst an environment in which there is a huge wealth gap, or reduction of poverty?

You keep pushing, again and again, wealth generation. Unfortunately, wealth generation that does not benefit the lower and midde classes is practically useless, except to those who are already rich. We need to focus not on wealth generation at all, but on improving the standard of living for as many people as possible, while ensuring a minimum standard for the poorest of people. The last 30 years, during which much wealth was generated in the US, have proven that having one doesn't necessarily lead to the other.

You really seem to be much more like your Maoist and Stalinist brethren! You seem to be proud of wealth generation 'for the glory of our glorious nation' rather than for the benefit of the people.

We absolutely have! Oh my God, I can't believe you're even claiming this.



What's the difference?



True. But it is only your claim that is doesn't benefit them.



That's what generating wealth does.



Untrue. Completely and utterly untrue.



Well, sometimes what seems to be so, isn't. This is one of those times.

We have!? This is great news. News that isn't supported by data of poverty, working class incomes vs. inflation, and homelessness in the US, but what the heck!? I'd love to see more evidence of this news!

No, actually. I'd love to see how the generation of wealth in the US slowed down whenever we passed things like minimum wage laws, employee protection laws, anti-trust laws, union rights laws, environmental protection laws, health protection laws, etc., in the US. Show me the data.

Are you chatting up the spammers again!? Tsk Tsk...

Big news! Chicken flippers at KFC outlets in Hong Kong (there are probably about a hundred such outlets at least) just had their wages increased from US$2.40 an hour to US$3.50 an hour! They didn't lose any benefits and the price of a bucket of wings didn't go up. Meanwhile an anonymous Libertarian in the US was found with with his head having spontaneously exploded! Foul play was not suspected, as it was clear that the accident was the result of perceived logical paradox. Story at eleven.

And in other news...superficial, anecdotal, short-term and simplistic economic analysis continues from the left.

\

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

The Scottish people say no to empire

Especially people there or who have some experience there. But I'm also curious how Americans view this.

This is such cute reasoning. It must be nice to have such a simplistic view of the world. Jon Stewart would be so proud!

To prove this really had the effects you claim, you'd have to do the following.

First, show how the profits of the various companies didn't go down in the future reporting quarters. Second, you'd have to show the company didn't alter their growth plans at all. If they were planning to open 50 restaurants and now they only open 25, then that is 25 restaurants worth of jobs gone as an example.

Lastly you have to show that the current restaurants are all still employing the exact same number of people to do the exact same amount of work within roughly 24 months of now.

Otherwise the costs don't disappear. They become slowly absorbed.

If inflation occurs then more money is needed to purchase the same items and that is a no gain. If the restaurant used to employ 20 people but now they increase productivity and mechanization and hire only 15, that is a net loss for jobs. Same thing for if future growth plans called for 50 new restaurants and now they only have the profits or can only see a return for opening 25-35, that is a loss of jobs as well.

But really, it must be interesting to go through the day the way that post explains economics. It's akin to asking how one can be out of money when one still has checks.

In Iran, not so long ago, president Mahmud Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used to be on the same side, that is: the side of conservative clericalism.
But in recent times relations between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have soured. Khamenei has reinstated Moslehi, minister of intelligence, whom Ahmadinejad had sacked. While the president is supposed to be subordinate to the spiritual leader, Ahmadinejad claimed that appointing and dismissing ministers is his prerogative.
BBC News: Analysis: Row between Iranian leaders comes to a head

Meanwhile, several supporters of Ahmadinejad have been arrested for sorcery, summonning djinns, and otherwise using supernatural powers to promote the president's cause. And in this theocracy they take their supernatural as a very serious matter.
The Guardian: Ahmadinejad allies charged with sorcery

This was interesting: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...-photo/?hpt=C2

What's most interesting is how easily this kind of thing could be done.