Understanding economics - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

The CONSUMPTION of resources to support a society is not the waste of resources. That's what you don't get.
Everything asserted here about "wasted resources" has removed life from the equation and all we're left with is a dollar sign.

Actually, it is you that's not "getting it." Wasting resources is the pathway to poverty and death. The point of not wasting resources is that there are more resources to do more things, typically supporting more life for more people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

The fact is, if you make enough poor people poor enough, desperate enough, then they will work for $1 an hour rather than nothing. That's exactly what would happen if there is no minimum wage and no welfare.

I'm afraid you have no evidence to support this claimed dystopian future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

The goal is not the maximizing of profit, growth, GDP. The goal is people living their lives comfortably. Even lazy people or people born on the wrong side of the tracks.

Agreed. The part you don't get is that a free and growing economy is the route to get there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

When you buy food for your family, is that wasting resources?

No*.

*Actually, it could be. It depends. This cannot be categorically determined, each instance must be analyzed to properly answer that question. The fact is, it could be wasteful in certain cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Your wife and kids can buy their own damn fries, and your family income will be higher.

What?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Look who doesn't understand economics.

Yes, you. This is ever more obvious with every post you write.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Of course you know, as well as I do, that that only works if people actually use those resources to support more life for more people. Instead, people buy a third house, a bigger yacht, a sixth car, or hide all their cash away in the Caymans.

And here's another example.

Allowing for your caricature of business owners and the rich for a moment...

It's not like, you know, no one had to be paid to build that their house or yacht or car.

Wow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

I've said this a thousand times and it goes over your head or wilfully through your ears every time... A hundred thousand dollars spent on groceries supports a hell of a lot more jobs and people than a hundred thousand spent on a Ferarri. And you're talking about wasting resources?

Prove it or shut up.

I notice you still haven't answered how much of a life you'll have when you wage goes to zero. I figure you'll continue to ignore this reality because it doesn't fit into the denial you've carefully crafted in your mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

This from a believer in trickle down economics!

Your continued use of this sloppy phrase is further evidence of your economic ignorance. Explain, precisely, what you mean by "trickle down economics" and then we might be able to discuss your claims and accusations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

My wage will not go down to zero, and by that, I mean, minimum wage does not add significantly to unemployment. You say it does. Prove it or shut up.

I never said "significantly," that's your straw man. The simple and real fact is that raising the minimum wage will create unemployment for the most marginal employees. Those with the least experience, skills and productivity. These are the people that need the entry level jobs the most as it becomes the first rung on the employment ladder. The minimum wage effective removes the lowest rung(s). How "significant" or widespread this unemployment effect is related to the amount of the minimum wage, particular in relation to what market wage rates would be absent the statutory minimum.

The video presented clearly explained the principles at work here. You seems to be responding by simply sticking your fingers in your ears.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Here's how things work.

Frankly, you've demonstrated your lack of qualification to tell us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

People want to do business. In order to provide goods or services, people need employees. They will only ever use as many employees as they need to do business. They won't use more employees just because they have more money. They won't use fewer employees because the wage is (slightly) higher. If you need 100 people to make a widget, a higher wage won't mean you can suddenly manage with less.

And this statement proves it.

Absolutely they will use less (or more if they think they can grow their business.) In fact the lowest level employment scene has shown this over the past 20-30 years. We have self-serve gas pumps and checkout lanes for exactly this reason.

That's just one example.

As labor costs rise, businesses will invest in tools that expedite the elimination of some employees. Typically the least valuable, skilled and experienced employees.

Additionally, employers will find other ways to reduce costs, some of which may negatively affect remaining employees...such as reducing benefits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

The idea that minimum wage leads to unemployment is bullshit.

Well, here we have it. The entire mindset of the left in one statement: A stubborn and ignorant denial of economic reality. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Now... Minimum wage CAN lead to inflation. But that can be kept in check, and the increase in prices will never exceed the increase in wages, as long as CEOs aren't increasing their take as well.

And further evidence that you don't understand how inflation works either. That's not how inflation happens. Price inflation is a result of monetary inflation (an increase in the supply of money and credit) which is drive by the central bank (The Fed.)

Pick up a book or two tonton. The book "Economics in One Less" would be a good start.

Tell me tonton, why the stubborn denial of economic reality? Is it really so necessary for you to be right on this? What do you gain by that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

I don't need your books that support your theories to know that they are bullshit.

So now we know that your ignorance is not only stubborn it is also willful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Pick up a book or two by Nobel prize winning Paul Krugman. No? I didn't think so.

Mr. Krugman the economist will tell you the same thing. Mr. Krugman the democratic operative might not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

You have your theories and I have mine.

 This is isn't about my theory vs. your theory. This is about basic economics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

But the fact is, when you look at the last 30 years (where taxes have gone way down, especially for the rich, while unemployment has gone up and the wealth gap has gone up astronomically)

Unemployment has gone up for the last 30 years? You may want to check your facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

...when you look around the world at what economic systems are actually working to produce prosperous debt free societies rich in education and innovation (Dutch, Scandinavian) then it's clear that your theories don't work.

Actually its' very clear they do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

But don't take my word for it.

I won't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Read a book.

I do. I have. Plenty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Oh, yeah, it's not on your brainwashed libertarian reading list.

So you really don't have a counter argument than to claim I'm brainwashed?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Absolute free market economic theory makes the exact same mistake that failed soviet and maoist communist theory made. It ignores the fact that people are ultimately selfish.

You are wrong.

What's worse is that your statism and authoritarianism ignores people's lust for power and willingly gives it to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

I'm wrong how? That people are selfish, or that your utopian ideals ignore that, just like communism does?

The second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Show me how your theories prevent collusion, corporate cannibalism, lax safety regulation that leads to death, feudalism, infinitely dripping wages, crime of desperation. They don't.

I would love to, but you seem immune to logic and reason as evidenced by the recent string of posts. You can't even accept the basics about the minimum wage, how could I possibly convince you of anything more involved than that?! You've settled on your (dystopian) conclusion and won't be moved from it by any line of logic or reasoning or facts. Your adherence to your position is one of faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Hundreds of thousands... Hahahaaaaa!!!!

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

And I'm the liar...

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Now how many people are involved with the production and marketing of 100k worth of groceries? Are you honestly claiming it's less than the real number (not your made up bullshit) of people involved in making a luxury car?

You made the original claim. Burden of proof is on you. Please prove your claim or shut up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

And none of you have answered the question about the caymans.

What about it? The money is used as capital in one way or another for investment (usually) though it may also be loaned out for consumption purposes. Does your ignorance of economic matters extend to how money and banking and saving and investment works also?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Let me know when you actually want to engage in a civil conversation.

Don't hold your breath.

tonton 2.0 = BR 1.0

Think Consumption Is The 'Engine' Of Our Economy? Think Again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeb85 

Production = Consumption of labour capital...  

What is your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeb85 

The article is arguing about semantics, and does nothing to refute Keynesian economics...

Actually it is not. You are correct that production consumes labor. However this is not at all the sense in which consumption is used by the Keynesians. They are referring to purchase of, demand for and consumption of consumer goods vs. high-order production goods and services.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeb85 

Yes.  Well without consumption, the incentive to produce will only last for so long.  It may be a short-term boost, but is unmaintainable without a raison d'être.  Demand doesn't always drive the economy, production can produce demand, but demand will always maintain production.  

Perhaps it will help you to re-read the article.