Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 13, 2017, 03:22:27 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
106194 Posts in 2395 Topics by 1094 Members
Latest Member: Ice Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Economics
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] Print
Author Topic: Economics  (Read 135233 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #400 on: May 01, 2017, 08:13:38 PM »

Judge every Democrat proposal to help or expand the "Middle Class" with this in mind...

"The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/01/trump-test-democrats-tax-patriotism-glenn-reynolds/101159082/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-sSZk.GAzZjnKA3Zm_U0Yyg

https://philoofalexandria.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/reynolds-law/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15386


« Reply #401 on: May 01, 2017, 09:22:33 PM »

"Everybody gets a trophy", writ large.


Judge every Democrat proposal to help or expand the "Middle Class" with this in mind...

"The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/01/trump-test-democrats-tax-patriotism-glenn-reynolds/101159082/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-sSZk.GAzZjnKA3Zm_U0Yyg

https://philoofalexandria.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/reynolds-law/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #402 on: May 15, 2017, 01:22:47 PM »

"Please feel free to post that in the Tax thread here and the Economics thread on the SC&H forum too."

 http://www.heritage.org/node/18247/print-display
The tax rate cuts of the 1920s were followed by a 61% increase revenues over 7 years.
The Kennedy tax rate cuts brought a 62% increase in revenues over 7 years.
The Reagan tax rate cuts yielded a 54% increase over 6 years (100% over 10 years).

Then when Bush or Trump propose tax rate cuts, the media demands to know how they will deal with the static revenue loss - a demonstrably false premise question.
--------------------------------------

Opponents argue that revenues increase anyway, but the point is that if revenues surge after rates are lowered, the increase in income is that much more - which is a good thing!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #403 on: May 24, 2017, 08:33:53 AM »

"High social transfers not tied to work incentives emerged as the most likely explanation for the low participation rate. The phase-in of ... minimum wage ... may have also helped to drive down participation rates."   - BROOKINGS INSTITUTION (regarding fiscal collapse in Puerto Rico)

http://caseymulligan.blogspot.com/2017/01/who-wrote-this.html?m=1
https://www.brookings.edu/book/restoring-growth-in-puerto-rico/  (Page 29)


Pay for not working hurts work participation.  Who knew?
« Last Edit: May 24, 2017, 08:35:53 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7680


« Reply #404 on: May 24, 2017, 08:41:35 AM »

"High social transfers not tied to work incentives emerged as the most likely explanation for the low participation rate"

What are "high social transfers" - is this politically correct speak for free government sponsored benefits ?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #405 on: May 24, 2017, 09:31:29 AM »

"High social transfers not tied to work incentives emerged as the most likely explanation for the low participation rate"

What are "high social transfers" - is this politically correct speak for free government sponsored benefits ?

Right.  The redistribution economy run amok.  Government directed theft from producers to non-producers both reduces the incentive to produce and increases the receive.  Every additional dollar transferred doubles this incentive/disincentive problem.  Each time one more person switches from contributing to receiving, we are two steps closer to an economy that will not support those in real need.  In the case of the US, we are already $19 trillion in debt, short of being able to pay our bills.

In the US, 27% of the people have full time, private sector jobs.  (I rounded up, using 2014 numbers.)

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/86m-full-time-private-sector-workers-sustain-148m-benefit-takers

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #406 on: June 13, 2017, 11:36:49 AM »

Written from a political perspective but quite telling about how things work economically.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2017/06/12/the_democrats_new_economic_agenda_will_solidify_their_minority_status_102738.html

The Democrats' New Economic Agenda Will Solidify Their Minority Status
By John Tamny
June 12, 2017
 The Democrats' New Economic Agenda Will Solidify Their Minority Status
In a column from December of 2015, the Wall Street Journal’s Mary O’Grady unveiled a rather inconvenient fact that poverty warriors on the American left and right would perhaps prefer remain hidden: from 1980 to 2000, when the U.S. economy boomed, the number of Mexican arrivals into the U.S. grew from 2.2 million in 1980 to 9.4 million in 2000. The previous number is a clear market signal that the U.S. is where poverty has always been cured, as opposed to a condition that requires specific U.S. policy fixes.

O’Grady’s statistics came to mind while reading a recent New York Times column by Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He writes that a “highly progressive agenda [from Democratic scholars and politicians] has been coming together in recent months, one with the potential to unite both the Hillary and Bernie wings of the party, to go beyond both Clintonomics and Obamanomics.” The problem is that the agenda that's got Bernstein so giddy has nothing to do with the very economic growth that is always the source of rising economic opportunity for the poor, middle and rich.

Up front, Bernstein expresses excitement about a $190 billion (annually) program that he describes as a “universal child allowance.” The allowance would amount to annual federal checks sent to low-income families of $3,000/child. It all sounds so compassionate on its face to those who think it kind for Congress to spend the money of others, but given a second look even the progressive and hysterical might understand that economic opportunity never springs from a forcible shift of money from one pocket to another. If it were, theft would be both legal and encouraged.

The very economic growth in the U.S. that has long proven a magnet for the world’s poorest springs not from wealth redistribution, but instead from precious capital being matched with entrepreneurs eager to transform ideas into reality. Just as the U.S. economy wouldn’t advance if Americans with odd-numbered addresses stealthily 'lifted' $3,000 each from those with even-numbered addresses, neither will it grow if the federal government is the one taking from some, only to give to others. Economic progress always and everywhere springs from investment, yet Bernstein is arguing with a straight face that the U.S.’s poorest will be better off if the feds extract $190 billion of precious capital from the investment pool. As readers can probably imagine, he doesn’t stop there.

Interesting is that Bernstein’s next naïve suggestion involves “direct job creation policies, meaning either jobs created by the government or publicly subsidized private employment.” Ok, but all jobs are a function of private wealth creation as Bernstein unwittingly acknowledges given his call for resource extraction from the private sector in order to create them. This begs the obvious question why economic opportunity would be enhanced if the entrepreneurial and business sectors had less in the way of funds to innovate with. But that’s exactly what Bernstein is seeking through his $190 billion “universal child allowance,” not to mention his call for more “jobs created by the government.” Stating what’s obvious even to Bernstein, government can’t create any work absent private sector wealth, so why not leave precious resources in the hands of the true wealth creators? Precisely because they’re wealth focused, funds kept in their control will be invested in ways that foster much greater opportunity than can politicians consuming wealth created by others.

Still, Bernstein plainly can’t see just how contradictory his proposals are; proposals that explicitly acknowledge where all opportunity emerges from. Instead, he calls for more government programs. Specifically, he’s proposing a $1 trillion expansion of the “earned-income tax credit” meant to pay Americans to go to work. As he suggests, the $1 trillion of funds extracted from the productive parts of the economy would lead to family of four tax credits of $6,000 in place of the “current benefit of about $2,000.” Ok, but what goes unexplained here is why we need to pay those residing in the U.S. to work in the first place.

What gives life to the above question is the previously mentioned influx of Mexican strivers into the U.S. during the U.S. boom of the 80s and 90s. What the latter indicated rather clearly is that economic growth itself is the greatest enemy poverty has ever known. It also indicated that work is available to those who seek it, and even better, the work available is quite a bit more remunerative than one could find anywhere else in the world. Rest assured that the U.S. hasn’t historically experienced beautiful floods of immigration because opportunity stateside was limited. People come here because the U.S. is once again the country in which the impoverished can gradually erase their poverty thanks to abundant work opportunities. If Mexicans who frequently don’t speak English can improve their economic situations in the U.S., why on earth would the political class pay natives who do speak the language to pursue the very work that is the envy of much of the rest of the world? Put rather simply, those who require payment above and beyond their wage to get up and go in the morning have problems that have nothing to do with a lack of work, and everything to do with a lack of initiative. Importantly, handouts from Washington logically won’t fix what is a problem of limp ambition. At best, they'll exacerbate what Bernstein claims to want to fix.

Most comical is Bernstein’s assertion that the tax credits will allegedly mitigate “the damage done to low- and moderate-wage earners by the forces of inequality that have steered growth away from them” in modern times. What could he possibly mean? The U.S. has long been very unequal economically, yet the world's poorest have consistently risked their lives to get here precisely because wealth gaps most correlate with opportunity. Translated, investment abundantly flows to societies where individuals are free to pursue what most elevates their talents (yes, pursuit of what makes them unequal), and with investment comes work options for a growing number. Doubters need only travel to Seattle and Silicon Valley, where the world's five most valuable companies are headquartered, to see up close why the latter is true.

Similarly glossed over by this rather confused economist is that rising inequality is the surest sign of a shrinking lifestyle inequality between the rich and poor. We work in order to get, and thanks to rich entrepreneurs more and more Americans have instant access at incessantly falling prices to the computers, mobile phones, televisions, clothing and food that were once solely the preserve of the rich. Just once it would be nice if Bernstein and the other class warriors he runs with would explain how individual achievement that leads to wealth harms those who aren’t rich. What he would find were he to replace emotion with rationality is that in capitalist societies, people generally get rich by virtue of producing abundance for everyone. In short, we need more inequality, not less, if the goal is to improve the living standards of those who presently earn less.

Remarkably, Bernstein describes the ideas presented as “bold” and “progressive,” but in truth, they’re the same lame-brained policies of redistribution that the left have been promoting for decades. And as they’re anti-capital formation by Bernstein’s very own admission, they’re also inimical to the very prosperity that has long made the U.S. the country where poverty is cured. To be clear, if this is the best the Democrats have, they’ll long remain in the minority.

John Tamny is editor of RealClearMarkets, a Senior Fellow in Economics at Reason Foundation, and a senior economic adviser to Toreador Research and Trading (www.trtadvisors.com). He's the author of Who Needs the Fed? (Encounter Books, 2016), along with Popular Economics(Regnery, 2015)
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #407 on: June 25, 2017, 07:26:13 AM »

With the collapsing cost of oil and information we need a new way of measuring productivity.

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/05/17/the-new-oil-reality/

It’s possible that the productivity increases are appearing as lower prices rather than as higher incomes. If the price of oil falls from $100 per barrel to $50 per barrel due to increasingly cheap and efficient methods of production, then everybody in the industry is more productive in terms of barrels of oil per hour of work, but since the oil price has gone down, that productivity increase won’t be captured by statistical methods that calculate productivity in terms of money.
...
The African villager with a solar powered smartphone has more access to more information than Louis XIV in the halls of Versailles.

« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 05:16:35 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41773


« Reply #408 on: June 26, 2017, 01:11:26 PM »

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-seattle-minimum-wage-20170626-story.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15386


« Reply #409 on: June 26, 2017, 01:38:47 PM »


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/11/30/mcdonalds-to-install-ordering-kiosks-instead-of-paying-people-15hour-n2252849

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #410 on: June 26, 2017, 02:39:32 PM »


The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study, conducted by a group of economists at the University of Washington who were commissioned by the city. The study, published as a working paper Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/new-study-casts-doubt-on-whether-a-15-minimum-wage-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.9290384225c1

And once again, "unexpectedly".
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41773


« Reply #411 on: June 26, 2017, 04:46:58 PM »

Coming soon!  Government repeals Law of Gravity!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15386


« Reply #412 on: June 26, 2017, 04:58:50 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/Robots4MinimumWage/

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #413 on: August 03, 2017, 11:50:25 AM »

Catching up on my Alan Reynolds readings this am.

https://www.cato.org/blog/compare-medical-college-inflation-services-not-goods

JULY 24, 2017
Compare Medical and College Inflation with Services, not Goods
By ALAN REYNOLDS

A Wall Street Journal report, “Colleges Pull Back Tuition’s Long Rise,” includes a graph showing the cumulative increases in consumer price indexes (CPI) since 1990 for College Tuition, Medical Care, and All Consumer Prices.

Adding up nearly three decades of increases looks dramatic, but doesn’t show when various prices changes accelerated or slowed. More important, prices for college tuition and medical care are dominated by skilled human services, so they should be properly compared with service prices in general rather than with all items.

All Consumer Prices (shown as an erratic black line in the graph) includes falling quality-adjusted prices for such tech products as computers and televisions, for example, and cyclically-volatile prices of internationally traded commodities such as oil, steel, and grain.

Service prices largely reflect wages and benefits for skilled labor, which (unlike commodity prices) almost never fall. If service prices did not increase faster than the CPI in general, then real compensation in service sectors could never rise.

See graph:  https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/compare_medical_care_with_services_not_goods.png

Medical care prices compared to other services & CPI

This graph omits college tuition because that CPI item is particularly problematic due to averaging large differences in quality and “financial aid” (selective discounts from sticker prices). The Bureau of Labor Statistics explains some of the difficulties:

“The inclusion of financial aid has added to the complexity of pricing college tuition. Many selected students may have full scholarships (such as athletic), and therefore their tuition and fixed fees are fully covered by scholarships. Since these students pay no tuition and fees, they are not eligible for pricing. In addition, there are other students who pay a very small fee to the college since the majority of their tuition and fixed fees are covered by scholarships. When these situations are priced by BLS Field Staff, normal increases in tuition/fees and minor declines in scholarship awards can provide extremely large changes for entry in the CPI index. For some of these same quotes, minor tuition declines or minor scholarship award increases can actually result in negative prices, which make the quotes ineligible for use in the CPI.”

The graph compares two decades of year-to-year price increases for Medical Care and Services in general. The CPI for medical services alone (not shown in the graph) has actually increased somewhat less than the CPI for all Medical Care, which suggests prices of drugs and medical devices increased faster than physician and hospital fees. There have been major improvements in the quality of drugs and medical devices, however, and economists doubt the CPI adequately adjusts for quality improvement. As a BEA report notes, “If there are unobserved attributes that change over time (e.g. perceived efficacy or experience with the drug), these indexes will count any price increases associated with these changes as increases in price, not quality.”

Have Medical Care prices risen faster than Services prices in general? Yes, but the difference in annualized price increases was typically smaller than one percentage point except in 2002 and 2010, when recession’s aftermath depressed other services prices more than (heavily-subsidized) medical care prices.

Recessions’ impact on commodity prices pushed the year-to-year overall CPI below zero at times, which underscores the inaptness of comparing prices of medical or educational services to any price index such as the CPI which is heavily weighted by goods.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #414 on: August 14, 2017, 02:48:54 PM »

" It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. "

  -  by Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776

http://geolib.com/smith.adam/won1-02.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #415 on: August 23, 2017, 10:46:35 AM »

Taking a bit of the Venezuelan story over here including GM's video for illustration.
----------------------------------------------------------
Coercive 'Paternalism' vs freedom with inequality

On the right, what went wrong in Venezuela is a stupid question, too obvious for words.  Socialism led to economic collapse.  On the left, it is the missing question, seldom or never asked.

Hugo Chavez was the hero of the American Left.  Some were explicit; others just argued we should implement all the same policies here. 
"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"  - Bernie Sanders, August 5, 2011  https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-gaps-disparities-that-threaten-america

A year ago I asked my closest, then-leftist confidant the question:

If socialism is so great, how do you explain what is happening in Venezuela?

For background, I even included the following information: 
The story of Chile’s success starts in the mid-1970s, when Chile’s military government abandoned socialism and started to implement economic reforms.  In 2013, Chile was the world’s 10th freest economy.
Venezuela declined from being the world’s 10th freest economy in 1975 to being the world’s least free economy in 2013 (other than North Korea).
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1307.msg98285#msg98285

She answered with the best explanation possible:  Maybe they (the socialists) went too far.
I agree and would add at least two exclamation points, They went too far!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaCSdtG4MmI

Coercive Paternalism versus Income Inequality

No one on the right wants zero public sector or no safety net, but we want to limit the powers of government and enlarge the liberties of the individual.  In a freer, market-based economy, income inequality is a fact - a feature, not a bug.  Some people make more money than others.  Some work harder, smarter, longer hours or more than one job chasing a dream.  Some keep making more and more over the working lifetime as they get smarter, more experienced and have more invested. Others hang out on discussion boards...  The fruit of our labor is one reason why labor gets done, goods produced and services provided.  The fruit of our investment, too.  Without fruit of your labor, goods don't get produced and services don't get provided.  It's not rocket science but we keep steering away from what is known to work best.

Coercive Paternalism is the ideal of The Left.  http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/03/07/its-your-own-good/  I kid you not! You don't want or need free choice when 'smart-planners' can do that for you and do it better.  http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1518.msg71031#msg71031 

You don't get to equality without coercion.  And then you don't get there anyway.  Big powerful government is a feature not a bug in real world socialism.

In Venezuela, they pursued the policies and dreams of the American Left.  We should thank them and pay them for their experiment.  They took from the rich and they gave to the people, well actually the government, on behalf of the people (the government).  But private sector capitalism requires private sector capital and they chased it away.  Ironically, Public sector investment also requires a vibrant private sector to support it - and they chased it away.  It's a fact, not a cliche, that eventually you run out of other people's money [Margaret Thatcher].

Among the endless ironies of the left is that as you pursue equality and grow poorer, inequality worsens anyway.  Compare Chavez' daughter with median income or see President Obama's record in the US.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/10/iron-fisted-socialism-benefited-hugo-chavezs-daughter-to-the-tune-of-billions-reports-say/
http://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/index.cfm?fileid=AD783798-ED07-E8C2-4405996B5B02A32E
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/26/during-obamas-presidency-wealth-inequality-has-increased-and-poverty-levels-are-higher/

Who knew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5KUadzyV9A
"How important is income equality to you?"
"Really important!"

Good luck with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDm2-1NZBLw
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41773


« Reply #416 on: September 01, 2017, 04:01:16 PM »


http://www.ftportfolios.com/Commentary/EconomicResearch/2017/9/1/hurricane-harvey-and-broken-windows
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #417 on: September 05, 2017, 02:52:55 PM »

I took another look at this because people on the left or looking for balance are still quoting and recommending it.

For anyone interested, please listen to this interview debunking Piketty up, down and sideways.  His little technical flaws make his thesis false.  His dates and basic facts are wrong such as when tax rates were raised in the US during the great depression.  Among his flaws he completely ignores depreciation, meaning that all capital ever put into use is still of full value and in use.

http://tomwoods.com/thomas-piketty-refuted/

All his errors are coincidentally in the direction of supporting his flawed thesis, not in random directions.

As with all leftists, they measure income and wealth of the lower earners without counting their income or wealth.  Housing capital is not capital or wealth, for example.  WIth the rich, they tell how much higher their income and wealth is without accounting for the actions we are already taking (taxation) to limit and discount their income and wealth.

Among those debunking Piketty is Piketty:
http://ww2.cfo.com/the-economy/2015/03/economist-piketty-backtracks-inequality-theory/

His work that ignores capital flight is not as popular in Europe, already plagued by capital flight.

Wages depend on productivity of labor which is dependent on labor.  To fight against capital is to fight against wages.  Who knew.

One who believes his own proposed tax on wealth is not doable is ... Piketty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIGM9ga1sWc
http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/18/economic-research-refutes-piketty/
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/02/joseph_stiglitz_thomas_piketty_gets_income_inequality_wrong_partner/
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/04/22/the_systematic_errors_in_thomas_pikettys_new_book_101016.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIGM9ga1sWc
https://www.amazon.com/Pikettys-Capital-Theory-Destructive-Program-ebook/dp/B00M0D69S2
https://economics21.org/html/problems-piketty-1307.html

I don't look for economists to predict the future.  I will happily settle for economists who can analyze the past and the present correctly.

Search this thread or "Piketty" in topic search for more on this.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 02:58:35 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #418 on: September 13, 2017, 01:59:46 PM »

https://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Work-Henry-Ford/dp/1497432251
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAtyxuaRnHM

The right to the fruits of our labor
Excerpts from Henry Ford’s ‘My Life and Work,’ 1922

When you get a whole country — as did ours — thinking that Washington is a sort of heaven and behind its clouds dwell omniscience and omnipotence, you are educating that country into a dependent state of mind, which augurs ill for the future. Our help does not come from Washington, but from ourselves; our help may, however, go to Washington as a sort of central distribution point, where all our efforts are coordinated for the general good. We may help the Government; the Government cannot help us. The slogan of “less government in business and more business in government” is a very good one, not mainly on account of business or government, but on account of the people. Business is not the reason why the United States was founded. The Declaration of Independence is not a business charter, nor is the Constitution of the United States a commercial schedule.

The United States — its land, people, government and business — are but methods by which the life of the people is made worthwhile. The Government is a servant and never should be anything but a servant. The moment the people become adjuncts to government, then the law of retribution begins to work, for such a relation is unnatural, immoral and inhuman. … The welfare of the country is squarely up to us as individuals. That is where it should be, and that is where it is safest. Governments can promise something for nothing, but they cannot deliver. …
 
The economic fundamental is labor. Labor is the human element which makes the fruitful seasons of the earth useful to men. It is men’s labor that makes the harvest what it is. That is the economic fundamental: Every one of us is working with material which we did not and could not create, but which was presented to us by Nature.

The moral fundamental is man’s right in his labor. This is variously stated. It is sometimes called “the right of property.” It is sometimes masked in the command, “Thou shalt not steal.” It is the other man’s right in his property that makes stealing a crime. When a man has earned his bread, he has a right to that bread. If another steals it, he does more than steal bread; he invades a sacred human right. If we cannot produce, we cannot have — but some say if we produce it is only for the capitalists. Capitalists who become such because they provide better means of production are the foundation of society. …

The only strong group of union men in the country is the group that draws salaries from the unions. Some of them are very rich. Some of them are interested in influencing the affairs of our large institutions of finance. Others are so extreme in their so-called socialism that they border on Bolshevism and anarchism — their union salaries liberating them from the necessity of work so that they can devote their energies to subversive propaganda. All of them enjoy a certain prestige and power, which, in the natural course of competition, they could not otherwise have won.

If the official personnel of the labor unions were as strong, as honest, as decent, and as plainly wise as the bulk of the men who make up the membership, the whole movement would have taken on a different complexion these last few years. But this official personnel, in the main — there are notable exceptions — has not devoted itself to an alliance with the naturally strong qualities of the workingman; it has rather devoted itself to playing upon his weaknesses, principally upon the weaknesses of that newly arrived portion of the population which does not yet know what Americanism is, and which never will know if left to the tutelage of their local union leaders.

The workingmen, except those few who have been inoculated with the fallacious doctrine of “the class war” and who have accepted the philosophy that progress consists in fomenting discord in industry, have the plain sense which enables them to recognize that conditions change. The union leaders have never seen that. They wish conditions to remain as they are, conditions of injustice, provocation, strikes, bad feeling and crippled national life. Else where would be the need for union officers? Every strike is a new argument for them; they point to it and say, “You see! You still need us.” …

The workingman himself must be on guard against some very dangerous notions — dangerous to himself and to the welfare of the country. It is sometimes said that the less a worker does, the more jobs he creates for other men. This fallacy assumes that idleness is creative. Idleness never created a job. It creates only burdens. The industrious man never runs his fellow worker out of a job; indeed, it is the industrious man who is the partner of the industrious manager — who creates more and more business and therefore more and more jobs.

It is a great pity that the idea should ever have gone abroad among sensible men that by “soldiering” on the job, they help someone else. A moment’s thought will show the weakness of such an idea. The healthy business, the business that is always making more and more opportunities for men to earn an honorable and ample living, is the business in which every man does a day’s work of which he is proud. And the country that stands most securely is the country in which men work honestly and do not play tricks with the means of production. We cannot play fast and loose with economic laws, because if we do, they handle us in very hard ways.

The fact that a piece of work is now being done by nine men which used to be done by 10 men does not mean that the 10th man is unemployed. He is merely not employed on that work, and the public is not carrying the burden of his support by paying more than it ought on that work — for after all, it is the public that pays!

https://books.google.com/books?id=8elRmsxDBWsC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=clouds+dwell+omniscience+and+omnipotence&source=bl&ots=LyEftCsOah&sig=2PsozpcwrE8HYJeHC0lOwQrW9b8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHh5Lc66LWAhUE5oMKHcmuAM8Q6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q=clouds%20dwell%20omniscience%20and%20omnipotence&f=false
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7680


« Reply #419 on: September 13, 2017, 07:19:13 PM »

Obamster has no problem cashing on the fruits of HIS labor doe  he?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15386


« Reply #420 on: September 18, 2017, 01:41:41 PM »


https://techxplore.com/news/2017-09-burger-robots.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9275


« Reply #421 on: September 27, 2017, 09:40:46 AM »


Why robots support a higher minimum wage
https://www.americanexperiment.org/2017/08/why-robots-support-a-higher-minimum-wage/

People Versus Machines: The Impact of Minimum Wages on Automatable Jobs
http://www.nber.org/papers/w23667.pdf

Raising the minimum wage by $1 equates to a decline in ‘automatable’ jobs of 0.43%. Certain industries were affected far more than others. In manufacturing, a rise of $1 in minimum wage drove employment in automatable jobs down a full percentage point.

If you raise the price of something, people will switch to substitutes.


A lot of economic turmoil comes from disruptive innovation and the globalization of markets.  Minimum wage legislation speeds up exactly what they wish to stop.

Leftists stuck on stupid.  Denying science.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 09:43:30 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41773


« Reply #422 on: October 09, 2017, 06:31:31 AM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/business/nobel-economics-richard-thaler.html?emc=edit_na_20171009&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41773


« Reply #423 on: November 21, 2017, 03:10:58 PM »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2014/03/19/the-war-on-poverty-wasnt-a-failure-it-was-a-catastrophe/#6620686a6f49
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7680


« Reply #424 on: November 22, 2017, 05:35:27 PM »

   
"War on Poverty was a Catastrophe"

The LEFT can fix this easily by confiscating more from those who produce .  They curse the rich but at the same time they would have zero power without them.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!