dr p runs for president

[Stargazer]

38 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

That is not true, there are a lot of business owners, economists, and even CEOs that disagree. For example Harvard economists endorsed Sanders, the CEOs Ben and Jerry also endorsed Sanders.

Look at the minimum wage, when the minimum wage was worth 11 dollars an hour in 1968 the unemployment rate was decreasing. 

As I said, Ben and Jerry are socialists.  Of course they would endorse Sanders.  Just because one or more Harvard economists endorse Sanders doesn't impress me.  And by the way, which ones endorse him? The ones who have been ivory tower socialists since they were weaned?   Stanford economist Thomas Sowell, a former Marxist who saw the idiocy of socialism, does not endorse Sanders.  Does this impress you?  I'd guess it does not.

As for the minimum wage, hey wow, guess what?  Cherry picking!  1968 is quoted frequently by those who like to advocate for the $15 minimum wage.  That's because that was the year that the minimum wage had the highest buying power -- EVER.  The reason they cite it is because they think it strengthens their position.  Unfortunately it was a fluke, or, in other words, an outlier that proves nothing. Notice what happened with the buying power of the minimum wage in the five years 1968.  Note that this graph was produced in 2009 and relates minimum wage to the then value of the dollar.  A similar graph with relation to 2016 data would show a similar "curve" with higher values (because the 2016 dollar is worth much less than the 2009 dollar).

I am trying to say that all these socialist panaceas (like the minimum wage) are not magic pills that will solve all the ills.  Unintended consequences are rife, and sometimes not even reported on because they become remarkably invisible when it doesn't suit the political biases of our mostly leftist journalists.  For example, there is a strong suggestion that increasing the minimum wage actually harms younger, less experienced workers, because employers preferentially hire their older, more experienced young workers if they have to pay more. But do our so-called journalists ever mention this?  Nope!

Until 2010 New Zealand had a lower minimum wage for under-18 year olds.  When they abolished that lower minimum wage and made the minimum the same across the board, unemployment among 16 and 17 year olds increased dramatically -- they had been priced out of the market because their skillsets and work ethic (or lack thereof) made them uneconomic at the higher wage:

You might say, wait until they turn 18, and sure that would do it, but the point is that the earlier under-18s were able to gather work experience while being paid less, and thus made themselves more marketable -- while the new under-18s will have a more difficult time getting that work experience!  And you'll note that the 18 years & over unemployment figure showed a slight rise as well, which suggests a long-term effect of the change to the minimum wage for minors.  The panel above I took from this video: How High Would You Make the Minimum Wage?

So what would you think would happen if the minimum wage was raised to $15 nationally?  Suddenly all workers can support themselves on it?  No, not at all, since prices for basic goods that traditionally track with the minimum wage (fast food, for example) would increase.  And have a consideration for fast food: a McDonald's burger becomes more expensive, and fewer burgers are sold.  This would likely result in workers being laid off because they're not needed.  

Other unintended consequences can be illustrated by this one case:

This guy would lose his medical benefits if his wage went up to $15 -- and he's ironically been demonstrating in support of the increase, though in order to continue to qualify for the medical assistance he would have to start working fewer hours.  Sure they could raise the income limits to compensate, and of course this is perhaps a special case -- but don't you see that this also illustrates the fact that price controls for labor has effects far out of proportion to what we myopic people can visualize?  UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, senor Skeptic.  You should probably be a skeptic where it comes to socialism, too.  Not just Christianity.

Well, this isn't on-topic, so I should probably bow out of this.  Nice crossing sabers with you!

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As I said, Ben and Jerry are socialists.  Of course they would endorse Sanders.  Just because one or more Harvard economists endorse Sanders doesn't impress me.  And by the way, which ones endorse him? The ones who have been ivory tower socialists since they were weaned?   Stanford economist Thomas Sowell, a former Marxist who saw the idiocy of socialism, does not endorse Sanders.  Does this impress you?  I'd guess it does not.

170 of the country's most respected financial analysts and top economists have penned a letter endorsing Bernie Sanders. Gerald Friedman (a Hillary Clinton supporter) defended Sander's economic views. 

SANDERS IS NOT A SOCIALIST! Sanders made it very clear when he said, "“I don't believe government should own the means of production"

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As for the minimum wage, hey wow, guess what?  Cherry picking!

Exactly, everyone cherry picks the data in economics, that is why it is not science. 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

1968 is quoted frequently by those who like to advocate for the $15 minimum wage.  That's because that was the year that the minimum wage had the highest buying power -- EVER.

Guess what, Sanders doesn't want a $15 minimum tomorrow! However, we will eventually need a 15 dollar minimum wage because of inflation. Inflation will make 7.25 be worth less and less. 

Please read 

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/2015/7/top-economists-are-backing-sen-bernie-sanders-on-establishing-a-15-an-hour-minimum-wage

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Until 2010 New Zealand had a lower minimum wage for under-18 year olds.  

I think you are cherry picking again, I can give you other examples like in Norway. 

However, employers like to hire adults, not teenagers. When I was Working at Walmart everyone there was more than 18 years old, no one was under 18. 

Teenagers are mostly not reliable workers.  

 

 

[mnn727]

Quote

 However, we will eventually need a 15 dollar minimum wage because of inflation.

 

When I started working minimum wage was $1.65 an hour. My first gallon of gas was 17.9 cents (bought with my first paycheck). A McDonalds hamburger was 19 cents. Average apartment rent was $165 a month. First Run Movie tickets were $1.75. First Class Postage was 8 cents, a brand new Chevy was under $3000, A Lincoln Continental was $7,250, and hamburger was 63 cents a pound.

Raising minimum wage CAUSES inflation, it NEVER cures it - NEVER.

Prices always have to raise to pay the added labor expense, which put lower priced workers in the same boat or even worse than they were before their wages raised.

Edited May 16, 2016 by mnn727

[mnn727]

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

However, employers like to hire adults, not teenagers.Teenagers are mostly not reliable workers.  

 

 

Obviously, you are someone who never managed fast food restaurants. I did for over 2 decades.
Some are not, but most are.

[TheSkepticChristian]

59 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Obviously, you are someone who never managed fast food restaurants. I did for over 2 decades.
Some are not, but most are.

Good, but times change. Employers prefer adults, that is why we can see mostly adults working at low-wage jobs. 

[mnn727]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Good, but times change. Employers prefer adults, that is why we can see mostly adults working at low-wage jobs. 

No, employers do not prefer adults. Your employer may, but your experience is not global.

[TheSkepticChristian]

8 hours ago, mnn727 said:

No, employers do not prefer adults. Your employer may, but your experience is not global.

True. it is a good point. Perhaps in the state of Utah good Mormons like to employ teenagers, but that is not the case in other areas. 

The bls reports that the unemployment for Apr 2016 is 5.0%, but guess what the Youth unemployment is? Are you sure that most employers don't prefer adults? 

 

[mnn727]

11 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

True. it is a good point. Perhaps in the state of Utah good Mormons like to employ teenagers, but that is not the case in other areas. 

 

I've never lived in Utah, I have lived in 4 other states. If you actually believe unemployment is 5% I have some nice oceanfront property in Iowa I'd like to sell you.

Nothing to say about my Minimum wage post?

Edited May 17, 2016 by mnn727

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 5/16/2016 at 8:39 AM, mnn727 said:

Raising minimum wage CAUSES inflation, it NEVER cures it - NEVER.

 The minimum wage contributes to inflation, but it is not the only cause. So how do you explain that 7.25 was worth more 3 years ago? I never said the minimum wage cures inflation, I am just saying that the minimum wage needs to keep up with inflation. Nothing can cure inflation, our resources are limited, that is why Utopias never work. 

13 hours ago, mnn727 said:

I've never lived in Utah, I have lived in 4 other states. If you actually believe unemployment is 5%

That is what the bls reports, that is the percentage of people that are actively looking for a job. So what do you think the Youth Unemployent? 

 

[longview]

10 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I never said the minimum wage cures inflation, I am just saying that the minimum wage needs to keep up with inflation. Nothing can cure inflation, our resources are limited, that is why Utopias never work. 

Extremely disjointed.

Inflation means that the amount of paper dollars in circulation increase WITHOUT a corresponding improvement of goods and services.  That is why people tend to want to "buy now" rather than wait because their dollars are steadily losing value.  On the other hand, DEFLATION has historically been known to occur.  This is where people HOLD on to their dollars because they KNOW prices are dropping.  Therefore they can buy MORE things at lower prices later on.  Are you denying deflation has ever occurred?

Government LOVES inflation.   They can borrow now to fund their schemes and pay off with MUCH cheaper dollars decades later.  Also, as inflation progresses, middle income people are pushed into higher and higher tax brackets.

10 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

That is what the bls reports, that is the percentage of people that are actively looking for a job.

FALSE!  It is NOT 5%.  You should already know that the BLS do NOT count those that had been searching for work but gave up.  The real rate is around 40%.  Those on welfare (especially the able-bodied that avoid work) should also be counted.

Young people desperately need entry level jobs (so called bottom rung jobs).  But too many adults have been severely "dislocated" out of their profession because of unwise taxation and regulations.  Many would rather work menial jobs than go on welfare.  This causes greater friction between youth and adults.  Which is VERY unfortunate.

[longview]

On 5/15/2016 at 1:10 PM, The Nehor said:

Economics is a funny field. The first premise in prediction is that people are rational. Economists know they are not but that is the only good starting place. Economics is applied psychology and people be crazy.

Economics is NOT primarily concerned with making predictions.  It deals with aggregates and statistical analysis.  Think of the bell curve:  on the left side are smart people who find good deals (lower prices); middle portion are the usual everyday prices (with some fluctuation); on the right side are people who are desperate or unwise and pay higher prices.  When the "Free Market" operates without government interference or distortion, the "right" price is reached and "provident" allocation" of goods and services is ENABLED.  The "Hidden Hand" works (as described by Adam Smith, circa 1776, "Wealth of Nations").

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, longview said:

Economics is NOT primarily concerned with making predictions.  It deals with aggregates and statistical analysis.  Think of the bell curve:  on the left side are smart people who find good deals (lower prices); middle portion are the usual everyday prices (with some fluctuation); on the right side are people who are desperate or unwise and pay higher prices.  When the "Free Market" operates without government interference or distortion, the "right" price is reached and "provident" allocation" of goods and services is ENABLED.  The "Hidden Hand" works (as described by Adam Smith, circa 1776, "Wealth of Nations").

It work after a fashion but in a very sub-optimal way. It also requires, as classical economists said, basic morality and honesty from all parties. And that is why we fail.

[Stargazer]

On 5/15/2016 at 4:48 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

170 of the country's most respected financial analysts and top economists have penned a letter endorsing Bernie Sanders. Gerald Friedman (a Hillary Clinton supporter) defended Sander's economic views. 

SANDERS IS NOT A SOCIALIST! Sanders made it very clear when he said, "“I don't believe government should own the means of production"

Whether he believes that government should own the means of production, or not, he is a socialist.  He himself has said so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFAq-4Vv5c0

He qualifies this as "democratic socialist", but still, he is a socialist.  He wants increased government control of pretty much everything.

On 5/15/2016 at 4:48 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Exactly, everyone cherry picks the data in economics, that is why it is not science. 

Cherry picking of data also exists in the hard sciences.  It doesn't make them unscientific, but it does mean that fraud exists in human affairs.  It is fraudulent to take one year's outlying figure and present it as the standard.  There is no economic justification for the minimum wage.  

On 5/15/2016 at 4:48 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Guess what, Sanders doesn't want a $15 minimum tomorrow! However, we will eventually need a 15 dollar minimum wage because of inflation. Inflation will make 7.25 be worth less and less. 

Whether he wants it tomorrow, or wants it implemented gradually, he wants it.  I don't believe in a minimum wage, but if we are to have one, it should be indexed to inflation.  I suspect you agree with me on that last point.

On 5/15/2016 at 4:48 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Please read 

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/2015/7/top-economists-are-backing-sen-bernie-sanders-on-establishing-a-15-an-hour-minimum-wage

"Top economists" support it.  And other "top economists" don't.

On 5/15/2016 at 4:48 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

I think you are cherry picking again, I can give you other examples like in Norway. 

However, employers like to hire adults, not teenagers. When I was Working at Walmart everyone there was more than 18 years old, no one was under 18. 

Teenagers are mostly not reliable workers.  

 

 

You are correct that employers like adults more than teens, because teens tend to be less reliable.  That is why increasing the minimum wage makes it harder for employers to hire teens, because they are priced out of the labor market.  That is a bad thing because it removes important opportunities for obtaining work experience from younger workers.

[longview]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It work after a fashion but in a very sub-optimal way.

Compared with Heaven, I suppose.  But there is NO better substitute for free interactions between individuals, groups, companies.  NO bureaucracy is capable of tracking and managing the trillions of price "signals" that fly around every day.  That is why socialism FAILS and communist dictatorships throw their hands up and unofficially allow the "underground economy" to operate behind their backs.

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It also requires, as classical economists said, basic morality and honesty from all parties.

Capitalism is NEITHER good nor evil.  It is simply the means for people to perform services or produce goods IN EXCHANGE for other people's work or possessions.  If some became sick or injured and are unable to provide for themselves, then it is up to the neighbors (or family) to decide how to assist.  Capitalism has no direct bearing on their decision.

Imagine a bunch of cavemen.  Some love to work with plants and cultivate their favorite fruits.  Some enjoy going out on the water and to fish.  Some like to work with wood and make figurines.  There are scores of products that the cavemen desire to have but do not have the time or energy (strength) to produce all their wants.  But if they triple their production, they can exchange for something they lack.  Thus the quality of life is greatly increased.  The whole is greater than sum of the parts.  Capitalism works!

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And that is why we fail.

It is NOT a failure if people work for a living and provide for their families.  God commanded that we earn our daily bread by the sweat of our brows.  God is pleased if we work diligently and support the prosperity of the community.  It is a whole other story when government jumps in and arbitrarily engages in "redistributionist" schemes for the benefit of favored classes.

In Heaven, there is no need to "earn our daily bread" but to serve others in developing attributes and gaining greater intelligence.  In Mortality, we have to work to stave off starvation and build shelter for protection from severe elements.  Life can be hard but there are important lessons to be learned.

[TheSkepticChristian]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Whether he believes that government should own the means of production, or not, he is a socialist.  He himself has said so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFAq-4Vv5c0

but that is the definition of socialism, so he is not a true socialist, In fact, true socialist don't want Sanders. See

http://sandersisnotasocialist.com/

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

He qualifies this as "democratic socialist", but still, he is a socialist.  He wants increased government control of pretty much everything.

That is not true. He wants to break up the big banks so there can be competition. He wants to end corporatism and crony capitalism so small business can rise. I bet Sanders is the most libertarian candidate running for office. 

Sanders doesn't want government to control everything, he believes in free markets, He will simply not allow the powerful to take advantage of the weak and desperate. 

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Cherry picking of data also exists in the hard sciences.  It doesn't make them unscientific, but it does mean that fraud exists in human affairs.  

In science thankfully there is a lot of scientific scrunity. A scientist that cherry picks the data will simply be destroyed by the scientific community.  In economics however, it is mostly based on opinions, not hard facts. 

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

"Top economists" support it.  And other "top economists" don't.

You are correct that employers like adults more than teens, because teens tend to be less reliable.  That is why increasing the minimum wage makes it harder for employers to hire teens, because they are priced out of the labor market.  That is a bad thing because it removes important opportunities for obtaining work experience from younger workers.

1, Economics is just ideology and opinions, not science.

2. I think most employers will still prefer adults even it the mininum wage was 1 dollar. Business simply want to make more money, that is their primary concern. Employees are simply numbers and machines to employers, they don't care about them. Most people in the world are selfish.  

Trust me, I seen that at Walmart. 

 

Edited May 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Compared with Heaven, I suppose.  But there is NO better substitute for free interactions between individuals, groups, companies.  NO bureaucracy is capable of tracking and managing the trillions of price "signals" that fly around every day.  That is why socialism FAILS and communist dictatorships throw their hands up and unofficially allow the "underground economy" to operate behind their backs.

Capitalism is NEITHER good nor evil.  It is simply the means for people to perform services or produce goods IN EXCHANGE for other people's work or possessions.  If some became sick or injured and are unable to provide for themselves, then it is up to the neighbors (or family) to decide how to assist.  Capitalism has no direct bearing on their decision.

Imagine a bunch of cavemen.  Some love to work with plants and cultivate their favorite fruits.  Some enjoy going out on the water and to fish.  Some like to work with wood and make figurines.  There are scores of products that the cavemen desire to have but do not have the time or energy (strength) to produce all their wants.  But if they triple their production, they can exchange for something they lack.  Thus the quality of life is greatly increased.  The whole is greater than sum of the parts.  Capitalism works!

It is NOT a failure if people work for a living and provide for their families.  God commanded that we earn our daily bread by the sweat of our brows.  God is pleased if we work diligently and support the prosperity of the community.  It is a whole other story when government jumps in and arbitrarily engages in "redistributionist" schemes for the benefit of favored classes.

In Heaven, there is no need to "earn our daily bread" but to serve others in developing attributes and gaining greater intelligence.  In Mortality, we have to work to stave off starvation and build shelter for protection from severe elements.  Life can be hard but there are important lessons to be learned.

Yes, I have heard the "capitalism is divine by inference" logic before. I still do not believe it. I think a mix of capitalism and socialism that best meets the needs of each individual nation is the best we will get this side of heaven.

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but that is the definition of socialism, so he is not a true socialist, In fact, true socialist don't want Sanders. See

http://sandersisnotasocialist.com/

That is not true. He wants to break up the big banks so there can be competition. He wants to end corporatism and crony capitalism so small business can rise. I bet Sanders is the most libertarian candidate running for office. 

Sanders doesn't want government to control everything, he believes in free markets, He will simply not allow the powerful to take advantage of the weak and desperate. 

In science thankfully there is a lot of scientific scrunity. A scientist that cherry picks the data will simply be destroyed by the scientific community.  In economics however, it is mostly based on opinions, not hard facts. 

1, Economics is just ideology and opinions, not science.

2. I think most employers will still prefer adults even it the mininum wage was 1 dollar. Business simply want to make more money, that is their primary concern. Employees are simply numbers and machines to employers, they don't care about them. Most people in the world are selfish.  

Trust me, I seen that at Walmart. 

 

 

Free College for everyone is definitely socialist.  He can declare he likes free markets, but if he did, then he would be campaigning to remove regulations that force businesses to merge so they can still profit in highly-regulared markets.  Calling Sanders a libertarian is like calling Stalin a Free-Marketer.  Crony capitalism occurs because government controls too much, and capitalists must therefore seek to make cronies in government in order to survive.  Sanders is NOT interested in reducing regulation, which is the only thing that could reduce or eliminate crony capitalism.  Also, onerous regulations is what makes it difficult for small business to rise, because the cost of complying with regulations is more significant for small businesses than for large.  And how does he think he can end corporationism?  Outlaw corporations?  

1. Is your opinion.

2. It depends.  Most adults wouldn't work for $1 per hour, but a young person might.  The fact of the matter is this: if a worker cannot add more value than he or she is paid, then he or she will not be hired, or will not remain employed.  That and that alone is the economics of labor.  Increasing the minimum wage past the point where minimal skilled workers can provide value at least equal to their cost, then employers will find alternatives, such as increased mechanization.  Unless you believe that employers are in business to make at least a minimal profit, then you have to accept this as a fact.  If you believe otherwise, then you are living in La-La land.  

 

[longview]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

"capitalism is divine by inference"

Not what I am saying.

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think a mix of capitalism and socialism that best meets the needs of each individual nation is the best we will get this side of heaven.

Capitalism implies self reliance, free association, choice to work as hard as you feel like, gauging your own risks, setting your own priorities, etc, etc.

Socialism implies coercion, setting winners/losers, making everybody more "equal" (yes, as in equally miserable), punish the successful, fawning over parasites, etc, etc.  The current president tried to promote solar energy by awarding Solyndra (the winner) but it blew up in his face.  Solyndra went bankrupt and the taxpayers lost hundreds of millions of dollars.  This has also happened to several other enterprises that he picked.  The president laid ever increasing regulatory burdens on the coal industry (the losers).  Now they are curtailing production and laying off thousands of miners.

Lucifer promised in the pre-existence that he would guarantee exaltation for everybody by forcing everybody to be equal (coercion).  This war continues to this day on earth.  Lucifer is working hard to take away freedom in the world with his supporters imposing more and more socialism over the people.

Socialism and Capitalism really are not compatible.  Socialism uses Capitalism to some degree only to make it more functional.

[TheSkepticChristian]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Free College for everyone is definitely socialist.

It's free public college tuition, there is a difference. Our military is socialism too. 

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Sanders is NOT interested in reducing regulation, which is the only thing that could reduce or eliminate crony capitalism. 

True, he is not interested in reducing safety and environmental regulations.

It's Big Money in Politics that creates crony capitalism.  

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 Also, onerous regulations is what makes it difficult for small business to rise, because the cost of complying with regulations is more significant for small businesses than for large.

Bernie Sanders does not support regulations that hurt small businesses. Why don't you read what Sanders wants. You can read some good stuff here 

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-small-business-and-entrepreneurship/

Instead of reading some propaganda against Sanders out-there. 

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 adults wouldn't work for $1 per hour, but a young person might. 

True, but if we remove the minimum wage a lot of employers will take advantage of that. In Mexico, most  businesses were charging for parking. It was the government that had to end that nonsense. 

Sanders simply wants some protection. Look at the History of humanity, the powerful always take advantage of the weak and desperate.  

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

then employers will find alternatives, such as increased mechanization.  

Like I said, most people are selfish. Most employers will look for the best alternatives no matter what the circumstances are. 

Bytheway, have we ever observed the libertarian ideas in the real world? 

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

2. It depends.  Most adults wouldn't work for $1 per hour, but a young person might.  The fact of the matter is this: if a worker cannot add more value than he or she is paid

Do you see evidence that raising the minimum wage hurts the economy? 

PS Economics is not the reason I support Sanders, I am mostly agnostics about economics, I could be wrong. 

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Not what I am saying.

Capitalism implies self reliance, free association, choice to work as hard as you feel like, gauging your own risks, setting your own priorities, etc, etc.

Socialism implies coercion, setting winners/losers, making everybody more "equal" (yes, as in equally miserable), punish the successful, fawning over parasites, etc, etc.  The current president tried to promote solar energy by awarding Solyndra (the winner) but it blew up in his face.  Solyndra went bankrupt and the taxpayers lost hundreds of millions of dollars.  This has also happened to several other enterprises that he picked.  The president laid ever increasing regulatory burdens on the coal industry (the losers).  Now they are curtailing production and laying off thousands of miners.

Lucifer promised in the pre-existence that he would guarantee exaltation for everybody by forcing everybody to be equal (coercion).  This war continues to this day on earth.  Lucifer is working hard to take away freedom in the world with his supporters imposing more and more socialism over the people.

Socialism and Capitalism really are not compatible.  Socialism uses Capitalism to some degree only to make it more functional.

See kids. This is what happens when you read Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand.....not even once.

[longview]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

See kids. This is what happens when you read Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand.....not even once.

Ayn Rand embraced libertarianism and free markets.  You wallow in the "narcotic of governmental socialism."   What common grounds do YOU claim to have with Ayn Rand?  

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, longview said:

Ayn Rand embraced libertarianism and free markets.  You wallow in the "narcotic of governmental socialism."   What common grounds do YOU claim to have with Ayn Rand?  

Ayn Ramd was a hypocrite about her supposed libertarianism when it was to her benefit, preached sexual infidelity as a "rational" decision when it benefitted her and castigated others cheating on her, and tried to preach selfishness to a virtue. She decried religion and said it was completely opposed to real morality. She despised Reagan and lived a very unhappy life.

If she is one of the best role models libertarians can find there is something wrong with the idea. She is diametrically opposed to the gospel and Christianity in general.

I am upper-middle class. I work in a business and hope to be a VP within the next decade. I claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit one year while I was in college (about $100) but have paid it back many times over in taxes. I have no family deductions. I have never been on welfare, food stamps, taken government student loans or scholarships, or been on any government assistance program. If communism or consecration hit us tomorrow I would be much poorer then I am now. How exactly am I "wallowing in the narcotic of government socialism"?

I do not have a lot of common ground with Ayn Rand. Her life was lived selfishly. I aspire to something greater. She was generally miserable. I am generally happy. She thought most people do not deserve love because they do not deserve it. I try to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. She sucked on the government teat and received far more then she ever paid in taxes. I have not. Satanists claim to take inspiration from her work.

I make a better poster-child for libertarianism then she does. Why is she still idolized?

[longview]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I do not have a lot of common ground with Ayn Rand.

Neither do I.  Cannot imagine why you would throw her name into the discussion?  I consider myself to be deeply principled conservative (pretty close to Reagan's philosophy but much closer to Milton Friedman's economic ideals and wisdom).  Did you derail because you did not have a good answer to this?

 

[Stargazer]

On 5/20/2016 at 9:31 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

It's free public college tuition, there is a difference. Our military is socialism too. 

There is no way the military is socialism.  

Quote

True, he is not interested in reducing safety and environmental regulations.

It's Big Money in Politics that creates crony capitalism.  

The only reason Big Money is in Politics is because of onerous government regulations.  Don't confuse cause with effect.

Quote

Bernie Sanders does not support regulations that hurt small businesses. Why don't you read what Sanders wants. You can read some good stuff here 

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-small-business-and-entrepreneurship/

Instead of reading some propaganda against Sanders out-there. 

I don't listen to anti-Bernie propaganda.  I listen to Bernie.  He can talk all he likes about being a friend to small business.  If he supports big government, and he does, then regulations will follow like night follows day.

It is impossible to not hurt small businesses when you regulate.  It is the small businesses that are most hurt by regulations because they are the least able to afford to comply with them!  Again confusing cause with effect.  

Quote

True, but if we remove the minimum wage a lot of employers will take advantage of that. In Mexico, most  businesses were charging for parking. It was the government that had to end that nonsense. 

Sanders simply wants some protection. Look at the History of humanity, the powerful always take advantage of the weak and desperate.  

It is the job of government to protect the weak and the minority from the powerful and the majority.  It can't do it by making it harder for businesses to hire marginal workers.  Which is what happens when 

Quote

Like I said, most people are selfish. Most employers will look for the best alternatives no matter what the circumstances are. 

Yes, that is all true.  

Quote

Bytheway, have we ever observed the libertarian ideas in the real world? 

We were closest to libertarian ideals not long after the Revolution.  I am not a libertarian purist, though.  Thomas Jefferson is reputed to have said that the government that governs best governs least.  Joseph Smith said it too, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves."  Those US states with the least interference with economics and business (i.e. the ones that are closest to libertarian ideals of government interference) are the ones with the best economics.  Generally.  There may be exceptions.

Quote

Do you see evidence that raising the minimum wage hurts the economy? 

I see evidence that raising the minimum wage will price the most vulnerable workers out of the labor market -- and the most vulnerable are the ones the minimum wage is intended to protect.  Irony.  It is the least skilled, who cannot add at least $15 per hour of value to their work, who will suffer.  The problem is, this is one of those invisible kinds of results: the person who isn't hired because a more qualified one gets the job, i.e. one who CAN add the $15 of value.  That one doesn't show up in the stats.

Quote

PS Economics is not the reason I support Sanders, I am mostly agnostics about economics, I could be wrong. 

 

 

 

Economics is extremely important.  Too few people don't realize this.

And I definitely don't support Trump.  Doesn't matter whom I vote for, however, since my state will go for whichever democrat gets the nomination.  History.  I can vote for Gary Johnson (the Libertarian candidate) with a good conscience.

I appreciate your point of view, even if I don't agree with much of it.  I'm not going to respond any further to this thread, but I appreciate your links and such.  Can't get to much information!

Edited May 21, 2016 by Stargazer

[TheSkepticChristian]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There is no way the military is socialism.  

The only reason Big Money is in Politics is because of onerous government regulations.  Don't confuse cause with effect.

Okay, what about the police and fire departments? We fund them with our tax dollars. 

It is not the only reason. Private Prisons give big money to political campaigns. Big Banks give a lot of money to political campaigns too. 

You think it is right that the elite are trying control Congress? 

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't listen to anti-Bernie propaganda.  I listen to Bernie.  He can talk all he likes about being a friend to small business.  If he supports big government, and he does, then regulations will follow like night follows day.

How do you define Big Government and what regulations bother you? 

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It is impossible to not hurt small businesses when you regulate.  It is the small businesses that are most hurt by regulations because they are the least able to afford to comply with them!  Again confusing cause with effect.  

What regulations are you talking about? Bytheway, did you know that most small business owners (USA) want the government to raise the minimum wage. 

and please read what Bernie says 

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-small-business-and-entrepreneurship/

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 It can't do it by making it harder for businesses to hire marginal workers.  

Businesses only hire the people they need and the most qualified available. It is not like if they have extra money they will hire more than they need. It's always been like that, that is why low-wage workers work like machines because their heartless employers want them to work very fast and do the impossible. 

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I see evidence that raising the minimum wage will price the most vulnerable workers out of the labor market

Perhaps, but there are respected economists and business owners that disagree with you. Maybe by raising the minimum wage workers will have more money to spend? 

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 It is the least skilled, who cannot add at least $15 per hour of value to their work, who will suffer.

Do you believe in slavery? 7.25 is a slave wage, it is nothing, but the desperate are hungry. 

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 I can vote for Gary Johnson (the Libertarian candidate) with a good conscience.

I like Gary Johnson, he believes in ending the war on Drugs and he admits Global Warming is real and dangerous. 

 

Edited May 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian