More Than 500 Economists Sign Letter Against Minimum Wage Hike

[Doer]

once you get done naming a regulation that needs to be done away with, we can talk about how 30+ years of trickle down economics has failed completely, beenthere.

30 years....OMG. TD ended with Reagan. See control chart post Reagan.

 

[UncleBuck]

30 years....OMG. TD ended with Reagan. See control chart post Reagan.

trickle down did not end with reagan. his policies not only stayed in place but were expanded upon.

trickle down is nothing but failure.

 

[Doer]

I will stipulate that we have gone way past Reagan. So, don't try to argue with me. If you would like to partake in an adult discussion about when we think it did fail, how it failed, and how long it lasted....OK...

It was never in place...all made up as a slam..the reasons came and went, but the Party keeps all these powders dry. Just Politics in Politics and certainly not even real.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2013/12/06/trickle-down-economics-the-most-destructive-phrase-of-all-time/
True to form, Barack Obama trotted out the phrase in a speech on December 4 in front of an adoring audience: “As the trickle-down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest while investments in things that make us all richer, like schools and infrastructure, were allowed to wither.”
Never mind that the claim about the withering of spending on schools and infrastructure is simply false (as Russ Roberts shows here). Let’s focus on that horrible “ideology” of trickle-down.



Yeah, just made up as a political slogan when you were in the diaper days. Typical. Since it has no meaning it goes on forever. Obama can claim whatever. You can believe all you want.

I withdraw my assumption that you meant anything real by any of your comments on it.

 

[UncleBuck]

so trickle down doesn't exist and is made up, but it also totally works and that's why you guys defend it?

that makes no sense.

 

[Doer]

Why say "you guys" support? Don't you like me after all? Go back a few posts?

30 years....OMG. TD ended with Reagan. See control chart post Reagan.

It was something made up that never was any different than what is done now by all sides.

It did get ole Reagan in the corner, and had to defend the label. But, it was a dead slogan before he died.

Nothing has changed much since then.

These competing Economic Theories are no worse or better than Marxism.

It is why John F. Nash won the Nobel Prize in Economics. This superseded all other Theory...except in Politics, of course.

An American mathematician who won the 1994 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, along with John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten, for his development of the mathematical foundations of game theory. Nash Jr.'s research differentiated between cooperative and non-cooperative games. He also developed an equilibrium theory known as the Nash Equilibrium (of which the prisoner's dilemma is a well-known example).

Keynsian, Voodooian, Draconian, etc are done in. They don't recognize "make a bigger pie."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics‎

H.W. Bush derided Reagan's supply-side policies as "voodoo economics".

Do you think he carried it on? No. He ran against the slogan.

Now you hear the slogan again.

 

[heckler73]

H.W. Bush derided Reagan's supply-side policies as "voodoo economics".

Do you think he carried it on? No. He ran against the slogan.

Now you hear the slogan again.

Horse and Sparrow
Galbraith was a clever one. I always liked his humour (but Stigler was the funniest of all).

 

[Canna Sylvan]

so trickle down doesn't exist and is made up, but it also totally works and that's why you guys defend it?

that makes no sense.

Robin Hood Economics doesn't work either. What happens when you give back all the money Prince John stole? Life isn't either or.

 

[Rob Roy]

The fact that they don't have a minimum wage job is a reason to listen to them, not ignore them. How much advice do you take from folks earning minimum wage?

Of course the person earning wages is doing it based on a consensual interaction.

The person you would have others listen to, relies upon theft for their money. Taking advice from thieves might be suspect, since the goal of the thief is to magically legitimize his theft.

 

[jahbrudda]

Of course the person earning wages is doing it based on a consensual interaction.

The person you would have others listen to, relies upon theft for their money. Taking advice from thieves might be suspect, since the goal of the thief is to magically legitimize his theft.

I don't think most people would categorize economists as thieves, I may be wrong.

 

[Doer]

Economists are no better than Marxists with algebra. Until Nash it was all opinion, math-lite, Voodoo. Now the only Voodoo is in Politics.

Economics is a game with markers. It is not a Zero Sum Game. The stock market, Kenysian and Supply Side theory are all examples of Zero sum games. Until Nash, there was no way why to math out the real game of economics....growth.

Economies are not Zero Sum. Roulette is Zero Sum. For someone to win, someone else has to lose.

Economies grow and shrink. And the is no Zero Summing in either direction. Either we grow the pot of gold, so there is more gold for everyone in the cooperation, or we shrink the pot of gold, because we place impediments on cooperative competition.... over taxing new tech, say.

My computer world is Nashian. Keep your enemies closer than friends is Nashian.

Nature is Nashian. If the virus and bacteria stopped cooperative competition within us, we would fall over dead.

 

[JohnnySocko]

look we can't just keep cutting taxes for rich people in the hopes they might somehow share that wealth, make more jobs and just not fucking spend it on more boats and shit....

problem with this theory is it assumes all money they spend ends up indirectly creating jobs, eh...a lil, but its mostly bullshit perpetrated by Republicans to please thier base....

...and as far as regulations go: for the most part its just whining by industrialist so they can increase thier bottom line and pollute, drill or do whatever they want as they see fit (see Jack Welch and the Hudson River) ....friggin Limbaugh got his hillbilly ignorant minions believing this crap (yeah spare me, yeah "Activist" pull the same crap on ghetto ignoramuses)

But OTOH
...lets face it: this minimum wage shit is just another entitlement by the dems to sorta "buy votes" more or less

 

[BigNBushy]

buying more boats is what we want them to do. There is a boat factory, and a guy driving a truck with boats on it, a boat salesman, and a boat delivery guy, and people at the marina to service the boat, and the marina gets services and products from other local people. Rich people buying shit helps everyone. It is when rich people invest their money in foreign economies as a tax shelter here that we get fucked. But the problem is that we have lowered taxes about as much as you can lower them and expect to see any real gain from it. They need to go way the fuck up for a little while. Like 80% top marginal rate, that far up. Why? That is a de facto maximum wage. Give it a few years, and drop it some more.

 

[UncleBuck]

buying more boats is what we want them to do. There is a boat factory, and a guy driving a truck with boats on it, a boat salesman, and a boat delivery guy, and people at the marina to service the boat, and the marina gets services and products from other local people. Rich people buying shit helps everyone.

yet somehow this concept doesn't apply or create jobs when the government hires people to improve a highway, who then have money to spend at local businesses. not to mention when the government buys materials needed to improve the highway from local businesses, who hire employees to provide that product, who then spend money at local businesses, and so on and so forth.

same exact concept, but then it's called the ARRA and is deemed a massive failure by the same people making the sandwich maker's argument above.

 

[JohnnySocko]

buying more boats is what we want them to do. There is a boat factory, and a guy driving a truck with boats on it, a boat salesman, and a boat delivery guy, and people at the marina to service the boat, and the marina gets services and products from other local people. Rich people buying shit helps everyone. It is when rich people invest their money in foreign economies as a tax shelter here that we get fucked. But the problem is that we have lowered taxes about as much as you can lower them and expect to see any real gain from it. They need to go way the fuck up for a little while. Like 80% top marginal rate, that far up. Why? That is a de facto maximum wage. Give it a few years, and drop it some more.

yeah, maybe in a perfect world w/o a nasty trade deficit...

basically sayin that theory is predicated on all that supply chain shit being made in the USA...
buying big screen TV's and Benzo's ain't making your avg American any cheeze...

hell, I'm hardly anti union, but some relief might be some of those high paying UAW union jobs for $30/hr be split into two $15 jobs (but we know GM or Ford would rather pocket the difference)

 

[heckler73]

Economists are no better than Marxists with algebra. Until Nash it was all opinion, math-lite, Voodoo. Now the only Voodoo is in Politics.

You are quite wrong with that statement, just for the record (cf. Ramsey, Tingbergen, VonNeumann, Philips, Kaldor, Kalecki, etc.). Perhaps orthodoxy wasn't imbued with mathematical excellence, but there were plenty of economists (and mathematicians, for that matter) gnawing away at the boundaries of reason using some serious tools.
For example, I was not aware of Frank Ramsey's influence on Keynes, and neither are most economists. Perhaps because Ramsey's life was so short? Who knows.
And yet he came up with this brilliant model of savings which only became more widely adopted some 50 years after his death.

So while your overall opinion of the field is not without merit, your perception of history is. Personally, I think Nash is overrated for his contribution.

 

[Doer]

yet somehow this concept doesn't apply or create jobs when the government hires people to improve a highway, who then have money to spend at local businesses. not to mention when the government buys materials needed to improve the highway from local businesses, who hire employees to provide that product, who then spend money at local businesses, and so on and so forth.

same exact concept, but then it's called the ARRA and is deemed a massive failure by the same people making the sandwich maker's argument above.

It counts. Sure it counts. Spending the money around is the name of the game, is how the game is played, etc. You need govt. I need govt.

And just as we owe 2/3 of our debt to ourselves, we employ a lot of ourselves to regulated ourselves.

This is self rule.

And nothing is correct about either side of the argument of does or does not the govt have a responsibility to create jobs.

In self rule we spend the money around and around in a complicated game of "get some" and "class goading."

But, when we are threatened WE can put the entire thing on War Footing all hands, martial law in an afternoon of voting.

Both sides of politics are both wrong, simple because, according to each side they are the only ones that are Correct.

 

[Red1966]

Oh, so the Fox news boy was trying to be funny, that's what you think? It's been proven a few times that Jon Stewart delivers MORE news than ALL of the Fox opinion shows that pretend to deliver the news. But there are enough threads about that.

Sad that you think Jon Stewart delivers news.

 

[Red1966]

Yes, I prefer to get my biased information from the source that has proven to be more accurate. ALL of the news programming on television in entertainment. It exist only for the purpose of selling advertising. Jon only needs to sell 32 minutes a week, Fox has to sell 16 minutes an hour. The problem here is that Facts tend to have what you percieve as a Liberal bias, when they are simply facts.

Jon is only ABLE to sell 32 minutes a week. Fox is not only able to sell more time, they are able to charge a higher price for it, too. You perceive failure as succes. The problem here is that Liberal bias tend to have what you percieve as Facts, when they are simply WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.

 

[budleydoright]

Sad that you think Jon Stewart delivers news.

Quote Originally Posted by budleydoright View Post

Oh, so the Fox news boy was trying to be funny, that's what you think? It's been proven a few times that Jon Stewart delivers MORE news than ALL of the Fox opinion shows that pretend to deliver the news. But there are enough threads about that.

And your disputing the facts with....?

 

[budleydoright]

Jon is only ABLE to sell 32 minutes a week. Fox is not only able to sell more time, they are able to charge a higher price for it, too. You perceive failure as succes. The problem here is that Liberal bias tend to have what you percieve as Facts, when they are simply WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.

I certainly don't view fox as a failure, just full of shit. Big difference.


You get your's from fox and friends and I'll stick with the 2 gay Rhodes scholars and the 2 funny guys on comedy central. Let's see who get's more facts.