Obama to raise minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011.

[heyheybooboo]

Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: jbourne77

And to control inflation, Carter tried strongarming the Fed to bend to his will. Reagan got it under control, but he did it by simply getting the hell out of the way and letting the Fed do its job.

It is incumbent upon you to back up your fallacy which you clearly cannot.

Originally posted by: jbourne77

At least you've put in enough thought to change your mantra from one baseless, juvenile insult to another. Once again, you've proven you have nothing of value to add to what has otherwise been a rather civil discussion.

Thanks for showing us all what you're made of .

You are a lying sack of crap who doesn't have the balls to admit you are wrong.

One link.

Back up your fallacy with one link.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Do you really think Obama is going to implement any of this shit until the market starts to settle down again in a few years? He's not that dumb. Look at his economic advising team for christ sakes, Warren Buffet would not support Obama if he thought his policies would send our economy further into the shitter.

lol so you admit it's just a political tool?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
You are forgetting about market competition and its ability to keep prices reasonably in check.

Oh, I haven't forgotten about this at all. In fact, this is EXACTLY why I'm against minimum wage laws in the first place: the labor market - like the market for computers, produce, and sex toys - has an equilibrium. Minimum wage - which is nothing but a price floor - distorts the market and carries the potential to make said equilibrium unattainable.

So keeping prices "in check" is precisely why you should be against such measures.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JS80

wtf i thought you were an obamabot

That's ok, the Obamabots think I'm a Bush/McCain lover.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: jbourne77

And to control inflation, Carter tried strongarming the Fed to bend to his will. Reagan got it under control, but he did it by simply getting the hell out of the way and letting the Fed do its job.

It is incumbent upon you to back up your fallacy which you clearly cannot.

Originally posted by: jbourne77

At least you've put in enough thought to change your mantra from one baseless, juvenile insult to another. Once again, you've proven you have nothing of value to add to what has otherwise been a rather civil discussion.

Thanks for showing us all what you're made of .

You are a lying sack of crap who doesn't have the balls to admit you are wrong.

One link.

Back up your fallacy with one link.

Would you like a side of bile with that vitriol?

I'd be more than happy to give you links, but I'm not going to legitimize your temper tantrums. At the very least, you can HINT as to why you think I'm wrong. That will give me a place to start.

Oh, and turn down the the volume on your obnoxious prepubescent kicking and screaming and turn up the volume on your adult communication abilities. If you have them.

Calling people names, liars, etc., is no way to get anything but laughter and pity in return.

If that's all you come here for, then congratulations.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: jbourne77

And to control inflation, Carter tried strongarming the Fed to bend to his will. Reagan got it under control, but he did it by simply getting the hell out of the way and letting the Fed do its job.

It is incumbent upon you to back up your fallacy which you clearly cannot.

Hey kid, it's not a fallacy just because you say so. The fact that you seem to think otherwise combined with the fact that all you do is troll around telling people they "fail" without giving any hint as to why you think so is precisely why I've gone no further with you. What would be the point; you're a child.

I agree I haven't presented much in terms of a case - no argument there - but you haven't even commenced a real discussion with me. Jimmy Carter interfered with Paul Volcker and the Fed; he in effect tried to make the Fed an arm and tool of the Executive Branch, and this prevented the Fed from doing its job. I'm prepared to go into this as deeply as you'd like, but you need to meet me halfway. Try actually engaging in a discussion rather than firing off one-liners from the hip and then accusing others of lack of thought. Get real. If you think the history is false or you disagree with the case-effect relationship I've described, tell me why and we can get a real back-and-forth going.

But you're not prepared for a real discussion and/or you're ignorant of the subject, so like I said earlier, fuck off.

You are a liar.

At least you've put in enough thought to change your mantra from one baseless, juvenile insult to another. Once again, you've proven you have nothing of value to add to what has otherwise been a rather civil discussion.

Thanks for showing us all what you're made of .

Carter appointed Volcker in 1979, less than 2 years before Reagan took office. Volcker had prime to 20% shortly afterwards.

Reagan usually gets credit for lowering interest rates and reducing inflation but, if anything, Volcker deserves the real credit.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Here is a great idea!

Lets raise taxes on a business that makes $270K per year. At the same time, lets blast labor costs through the roof! All in an economy where revenues are down already.

Yea, this will help.

Yes, it will help get rid of the greed.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: jbourne77

And to control inflation, Carter tried strongarming the Fed to bend to his will. Reagan got it under control, but he did it by simply getting the hell out of the way and letting the Fed do its job.

It is incumbent upon you to back up your fallacy which you clearly cannot.

Originally posted by: jbourne77

At least you've put in enough thought to change your mantra from one baseless, juvenile insult to another. Once again, you've proven you have nothing of value to add to what has otherwise been a rather civil discussion.

Thanks for showing us all what you're made of .

You are a lying sack of crap who doesn't have the balls to admit you are wrong.

One link.

Back up your fallacy with one link.

I'm just reading through this interesting thread and happen upon your posts here. From a non biased outsiders perspective I would say that it is you who is acting like a total ass.
Since you obviously have proof that he is wrong, why don't you just explain or show us and be done with it. He made a statement ...... prove him wrong or shut up and go away.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Here is a great idea!

Lets raise taxes on a business that makes $270K per year. At the same time, lets blast labor costs through the roof! All in an economy where revenues are down already.

Yea, this will help.

Yes, it will help get rid of the greed.

The only greed left will be in the government. :thumbsup:

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: jbourne77

And to control inflation, Carter tried strongarming the Fed to bend to his will. Reagan got it under control, but he did it by simply getting the hell out of the way and letting the Fed do its job.

It is incumbent upon you to back up your fallacy which you clearly cannot.

Hey kid, it's not a fallacy just because you say so. The fact that you seem to think otherwise combined with the fact that all you do is troll around telling people they "fail" without giving any hint as to why you think so is precisely why I've gone no further with you. What would be the point; you're a child.

I agree I haven't presented much in terms of a case - no argument there - but you haven't even commenced a real discussion with me. Jimmy Carter interfered with Paul Volcker and the Fed; he in effect tried to make the Fed an arm and tool of the Executive Branch, and this prevented the Fed from doing its job. I'm prepared to go into this as deeply as you'd like, but you need to meet me halfway. Try actually engaging in a discussion rather than firing off one-liners from the hip and then accusing others of lack of thought. Get real. If you think the history is false or you disagree with the case-effect relationship I've described, tell me why and we can get a real back-and-forth going.

But you're not prepared for a real discussion and/or you're ignorant of the subject, so like I said earlier, fuck off.

You are a liar.

At least you've put in enough thought to change your mantra from one baseless, juvenile insult to another. Once again, you've proven you have nothing of value to add to what has otherwise been a rather civil discussion.

Thanks for showing us all what you're made of .

Carter appointed Volcker in 1979, less than 2 years before Reagan took office. Volcker had prime to 20% shortly afterwards.

Reagan usually gets credit for lowering interest rates and reducing inflation but, if anything, Volcker deserves the real credit.

This is my point. I'm not crediting Reagan with anything other than allowing Volcker to tighten the money supply. Carter was vehemently against tightening the money supply and raising interest rates, which is why he couldn't get inflation under control during his term.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Here is a great idea!

Lets raise taxes on a business that makes $270K per year. At the same time, lets blast labor costs through the roof! All in an economy where revenues are down already.

Yea, this will help.

Yes, it will help get rid of the greed.

The only greed left will be in the government. :thumbsup:

and Joe The Plumbers

Hopefully they will leave because they don't like paying taxes.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Here is a great idea!

Lets raise taxes on a business that makes $270K per year. At the same time, lets blast labor costs through the roof! All in an economy where revenues are down already.

Yea, this will help.

Yes, it will help get rid of the greed.

The only greed left will be in the government. :thumbsup:

and Joe The Plumbers

Hopefully they will leave because they don't like paying taxes.

Nah, joe the plumber will be working for the government making what the government feels he should make which should make the democrats happy.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: jbourne77

And to control inflation, Carter tried strongarming the Fed to bend to his will. Reagan got it under control, but he did it by simply getting the hell out of the way and letting the Fed do its job.

Exhibit B:

Originally posted by: jbourne77 .....
Jimmy Carter interfered with Paul Volcker and the Fed; he in effect tried to make the Fed an arm and tool of the Executive Branch, and this prevented the Fed from doing its job. ....

But you're not prepared for a real discussion and/or you're ignorant of the subject, so like I said earlier, fuck off.

Exhibit C:

Originally posted by: jbourne77 ....
Carter was vehemently against tightening the money supply and raising interest rates, which is why he couldn't get inflation under control during his term.

Exhibit D:

Originally posted by: jbourne77 .....
Carter was facing double-digit inflation. Volcker and company wanted to tighten the money supply and raise interest rates. Carter was very much against this. Enter Reagan. He allowed the Fed the autonomy it needed and accepted a brief recession in order to reign in inflation.

You are a liar.

You are a thread-crapping FUD-posting argumentative troll.

Still waiting for that link ....

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: jbourne77

And to control inflation, Carter tried strongarming the Fed to bend to his will. Reagan got it under control, but he did it by simply getting the hell out of the way and letting the Fed do its job.

Exhibit B:

Originally posted by: jbourne77 .....
Jimmy Carter interfered with Paul Volcker and the Fed; he in effect tried to make the Fed an arm and tool of the Executive Branch, and this prevented the Fed from doing its job. ....

But you're not prepared for a real discussion and/or you're ignorant of the subject, so like I said earlier, fuck off.

You are a liar.

You are a thread-crapping FUD-posting argumentative troll.

Still waiting for that link ....

Don't hold your breathe

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: jbourne77

And to control inflation, Carter tried strongarming the Fed to bend to his will. Reagan got it under control, but he did it by simply getting the hell out of the way and letting the Fed do its job.

Exhibit B:

Originally posted by: jbourne77 .....
Jimmy Carter interfered with Paul Volcker and the Fed; he in effect tried to make the Fed an arm and tool of the Executive Branch, and this prevented the Fed from doing its job. ....

But you're not prepared for a real discussion and/or you're ignorant of the subject, so like I said earlier, fuck off.

You are a liar.

You are a thread-crapping FUD-posting argumentative troll.

Still waiting for that link ....

LOL I'm the one who's argumentative? That is RICH coming from you. Read your posts in this thread. Tell me with a straight face you're not embarrassed, and tell me with a straight face you haven't been acting like a temperamental little brat?

One last time before I just walk away from this charade: are you really interested in discussing this, or are you just gambling that I made this stuff up on the fly? We'll try this one last time. I'm going to say something, and if you disagree, you're going to tell me why. If you can't tell me you disagree and you simply just don't like what you're hearing, then be a man about it and simply find another thread to troll around in, ok?

Here we go:

Carter was facing double-digit inflation. Volcker and company wanted to tighten the money supply and raise interest rates. Carter was very much against this. Enter Reagan. He allowed the Fed the autonomy it needed and accepted a brief recession in order to reign in inflation.

Now, this is where you tell me what you disagree with and why. Anything to else will simply be ignored from here on out.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: jackace
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15227667/

"More than 650 economists, including five winners of the Nobel Prize for economics, called Wednesday for an increase in the minimum wage, saying the value of the last increase, in 1997, has been ?fully eroded.?

http://www.truthout.org/articl...-wage-doesnt-cost-jobs

"My thinking on this has changed dramatically," says Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman who teaches economics at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey. "The evidence appears to be against the simple-minded theory that a modest increase in the minimum wage causes substantial job loss."

Shame on you. Shame shame shame. You've posted something intelligent. Go hang your head and stand in the corner. All of these twits have posted NOTHING but stupidity (except for Astra, infra) before you, and you now come here and post professional opinion and facts. Please, don't let this happen again. You might get a reputation for carefulness, thoughtfulness, thoroughness and INTELLIGENCE. STOP I say!

I'd much prefer to hear some graduate of the High School for the Mentally Bereft opine on economic policy. It's so much more, erm, entertaining.

-Robert

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: jbourne77

And to control inflation, Carter tried strongarming the Fed to bend to his will. Reagan got it under control, but he did it by simply getting the hell out of the way and letting the Fed do its job.

Exhibit B:

Originally posted by: jbourne77 .....
Jimmy Carter interfered with Paul Volcker and the Fed; he in effect tried to make the Fed an arm and tool of the Executive Branch, and this prevented the Fed from doing its job. ....

But you're not prepared for a real discussion and/or you're ignorant of the subject, so like I said earlier, fuck off.

You are a liar.

You are a thread-crapping FUD-posting argumentative troll.

Still waiting for that link ....

Don't hold your breathe

You mean like when I asked you - twice - to tell me who minimum wage helps? Yeah, don't hold your breath . The only leg either of you have to stand on is a common enemy, common ignorance, and common disdain for reality.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Minimum wage is a horrible idea. There are far better ways to get companies to pay a reasonable wage. Unfortunately the government probably isn't ever going to implement them, so the MW is what we have left to work with, and it's better than nothing at all.

$9.50 is no big deal. Washington is almost that high now, and we're surviving (if just barely in some areas). The key to making it work is to get the hell out of the service industry, and return to industry, r&d, tech, manufacturing, and anything else that pays decently.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: jackace
http://crookedtimber.org/2008/...-and-the-minimum-wage/

More information on minimum wage and the models economists use to try and predict it's effects.

That's an excellent discussion of the effects of minimum wage increases and the follow-up Krueger/Card study.

But, please, don't inject facts and professional opinion into a discussion full of passion and fury signifying nothing.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Minimum wage is a horrible idea. There are far better ways to get companies to pay a reasonable wage. Unfortunately the government probably isn't ever going to implement them, so the MW is what we have left to work with, and it's better than nothing at all.

$9.50 is no big deal. Washington is almost that high now, and we're surviving (if just barely in some areas). The key to making it work is to get the hell out of the service industry, and return to industry, r&d, tech, manufacturing, and anything else that pays decently.

You post is but one more example of the stupidity pervading this discussion. Why should we listen your opinions on economic policy? You are pulling this crap out of your hat.

Post some facts, studies, economic analysis. You guys just want to masturbate all over this thread.

This is a technical subject, not a discussion on birth control or guns.

-Robert

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: jackace
http://crookedtimber.org/2008/...-and-the-minimum-wage/

More information on minimum wage and the models economists use to try and predict it's effects.

That's an excellent discussion of the effects of minimum wage increases and the follow-up Krueger/Card study.

But, please, don't inject facts and professional opinion into a discussion full of passion and fury signifying nothing.

-Robert

Haha. Thanks, jackace, I appreciate the links you've posted.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Exhibit A:

Originally posted by: jbourne77

And to control inflation, Carter tried strongarming the Fed to bend to his will. Reagan got it under control, but he did it by simply getting the hell out of the way and letting the Fed do its job.

It is incumbent upon you to back up your fallacy which you clearly cannot.

Hey kid, it's not a fallacy just because you say so. The fact that you seem to think otherwise combined with the fact that all you do is troll around telling people they "fail" without giving any hint as to why you think so is precisely why I've gone no further with you. What would be the point; you're a child.

I agree I haven't presented much in terms of a case - no argument there - but you haven't even commenced a real discussion with me. Jimmy Carter interfered with Paul Volcker and the Fed; he in effect tried to make the Fed an arm and tool of the Executive Branch, and this prevented the Fed from doing its job. I'm prepared to go into this as deeply as you'd like, but you need to meet me halfway. Try actually engaging in a discussion rather than firing off one-liners from the hip and then accusing others of lack of thought. Get real. If you think the history is false or you disagree with the case-effect relationship I've described, tell me why and we can get a real back-and-forth going.

But you're not prepared for a real discussion and/or you're ignorant of the subject, so like I said earlier, fuck off.

You are a liar.

At least you've put in enough thought to change your mantra from one baseless, juvenile insult to another. Once again, you've proven you have nothing of value to add to what has otherwise been a rather civil discussion.

Thanks for showing us all what you're made of .

Carter appointed Volcker in 1979, less than 2 years before Reagan took office. Volcker had prime to 20% shortly afterwards.

Reagan usually gets credit for lowering interest rates and reducing inflation but, if anything, Volcker deserves the real credit.

This is my point. I'm not crediting Reagan with anything other than allowing Volcker to tighten the money supply. Carter was vehemently against tightening the money supply and raising interest rates, which is why he couldn't get inflation under control during his term.

I don't know about that. From the horse's mouth.

INTERVIEWER: In your position at the Fed, you were extraordinarily independent. Not many countries' central bankers are quite that independent. Do you think President Carter regretted appointing you?

PAUL VOLCKER: I don't know. I haven't asked him that question directly; he'd probably be polite and answer ["no"]. But he's never really criticized me publicly. I'm sure it made him uneasy. He kind of [appeared uneasy] on one campaign appearance, but only one campaign appearance. I once asked him whether I cost him the election, and he smiled and said there were a few other influences as well. And let us not forget about the Iranian hostages and so forth.

INTERVIEWER: What was President Reagan's stance toward what you were doing?

PAUL VOLCKER: I saw him from time to time, but I was not a close intimate of President Reagan's. His entourage in the White House, or certainly in the Treasury, were very critical at times. They were... kind of a funny mixture. They had monetarist doctrine, supply-side doctrine, libertarian doctrine all mixed together, so some of it wasn't terribly coherent, which helped me a bit. There was unhappiness because there was a big recession early in his term, and things were not really stable. But he himself never criticized me directly in public, certainly. I always had the feeling that he was urged to do so. [It seemed] that every time he had a press conference somebody was urging him to take a slap at the Federal Reserve, but he never did, and I don't know why. I speculate that he was not a highly sophisticated economist. I'm sure he didn't understand all the arguments his own people were giving him. He did understand that he didn't like inflation, and I think he had some kind of a feeling that the Federal Reserve was trying to deal with inflation.

For being "vehemently" against the tightening of money supply and Volcker's actions, it surely doesn't seem like much was said.

Also, from The Historical Journal:

Burns?s replacement, William Miller, proved too soft on inflation when administration priorities changed. In early 1979 Schultze warned that the federal
reserve was ? exerting very modest restraint ?, the first ever expression of concern
by any Democratic CEA chair that monetary policy was not tight enough.49
Eventually in August 1979Miller was persuaded to become treasury secretary and
was replaced by Paul Volcker, an inflation hawk who had won the confidence
both of Wall Street and the international currency markets as president of the
New York federal reserve bank. Before accepting the post, Volcker made plain to
Carter his convictions about ?the importance of an independent central bank and
the need for tighter money?.

Carter?s oft-stated determination to conquer inflation meant that he had no
option but to be publicly supportive of Volcker despite the consequences of restraint
for his reelection. The president?s sole deviation from this line was an
impromptu comment during the election campaign that the federal reserve had ?put too much of their eggs in the money supply basket ?. Otherwise the
administration always defended Volcker to Democratic sceptics and the party?s
various constituencies.

Looks like Carter appointed Volcker knowing that he was going to tighten the money supply.

I think until you have any evidence to support your position, this is case closed.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: jackace
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15227667/

"More than 650 economists, including five winners of the Nobel Prize for economics, called Wednesday for an increase in the minimum wage, saying the value of the last increase, in 1997, has been ?fully eroded.?

http://www.truthout.org/articl...-wage-doesnt-cost-jobs

"My thinking on this has changed dramatically," says Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman who teaches economics at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey. "The evidence appears to be against the simple-minded theory that a modest increase in the minimum wage causes substantial job loss."

Shame on you. Shame shame shame. You've posted something intelligent. Go hang your head and stand in the corner. All of these twits have posted NOTHING but stupidity (except for Astra, infra) before you, and you now come here and post professional opinion and facts. Please, don't let this happen again. You might get a reputation for carefulness, thoughtfulness, thoroughness and INTELLIGENCE. STOP I say!

I'd much prefer to hear some graduate of the High School for the Mentally Bereft opine on economic policy. It's so much more, erm, entertaining.

-Robert

yes, posting an article from 2006 about whether to increase the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years has a lot of bearing when the increased minimum wage that came about is still being phased in.


edit: the card-krueger difference-in-differences study mentioned in the second link was about the worst conducted study ever.

 

[Rustican]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
More jobs going over-seas. More increases in the cost of goods and services. People will need more money to counteract the increases. Dems will again raise minimum wage.

What a fucked up pattern.

How are you going to move low-paying retail and service jobs overseas, Einstein ?

You begin to down size your work force where you can. One example is automatic check out lines. You no longer need as many people to man the registers. Robots and automation will be the future.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Here is a great idea!

Lets raise taxes on a business that makes $270K per year. At the same time, lets blast labor costs through the roof! All in an economy where revenues are down already.

Yea, this will help.

Yes, it will help get rid of the greed.

How will it get rid of poor people's greed? Explain.

Keeping what you earn and deserve = not greedy

Wanting what other people earn and you dont deserve = greedy