Thread: The Minimum Wage Fallacy

Originally Posted by cpwill

I would strongly suggest you go check out the Kyle Bass threads.

Link me please.

Originally Posted by imagep

Sorry, but all that real life business behavior stuff doesn't fit into conservative economics because it doesn't support the conservative viewpoint. Conservative economics is based on, well lets just say more "theoretical" type stuff that is made up to support the conservative viewpoint.

Yes. And then in a further shamelessly grandiose act of self-adornment, they call themselves adherents of the "Austrian School" -- a "school" that eschews empirical testing of its theses because such testing so consistently shows such theses to fail.

Originally Posted by imagep

Here, let me provide you with some absolute proof in the form of a hypothetical lie that I just made up to prove my point: "bla bla bla bla bla". See! I just proved that employers laid people off when the minimum wage went up.

Bla bla bla bla bla, you say. Hmmm. I hadn't thought of that.

Originally Posted by imagep

I'm offended by that term. You got something against my "do"?

Note the lowercase letter. You're thinking of the one with an initial capital letter.

Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang

Reagan produced what was then the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression,

Talk about what bozos post here, and amazing things they come up with....

Originally Posted by Arbo

Talk about what bozos post here, and amazing things they come up with....

Yes. Many conservatives claim that the economy was great under Reagan. Obviously they have never looked at the inflation rate, or the interest rates, or the unemployment rate of the early 1980's or else they would realize that we had 10+% inflation, that interest rates on a house were as high as the upper teens, that the unemployment rate was was as high is it is today, and that the only way we pulled out of all of that was huge deficit spending which was followed by something like 7 consecutive tax increases.

Sometimes there's a difference between the way that we feel and remember about a particular time, and the reality of the situation.

Originally Posted by JP Hochbaum

Cutting taxes and increasing spending, yes. And of course cutting back once we get back to full productive capacity.

I don't advocate for higher taxes, never have, in that way I am in bed with the right on this.

I also bolded everything I agree with.

Then why would you support the most contractionary budget presented to date? One that dramatically increases taxes and reduces spending?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/genera...post1060409955 (Progressives' plan to fix America)

Originally Posted by JP Hochbaum

I think it is a great plan!

Is it safe to say you support the candidate who's plan results in higher short-term deficits?

I was also wondering if you had any papers on the correlation between tax changes and inflation. I've been reading quite a bit of your blog recently and I do find it fascinating. Any empirically tested historical studies you can share?

Because out of all the budgets out there, it is the best. It decreases spending in areas that don't create jobs in the US. And the tax increases don't decrease aggregate demand.

Originally Posted by imagep

Yes. Many conservatives claim that the economy was great under Reagan. Obviously they have never looked at the inflation rate, or the interest rates, or the unemployment rate of the early 1980's or else they would realize that we had 10+% inflation, that interest rates on a house were as high as the upper teens, that the unemployment rate was was as high is it is today, and that the only way we pulled out of all of that was huge deficit spending which was followed by something like 7 consecutive tax increases.

Sometimes there's a difference between the way that we feel and remember about a particular time, and the reality of the situation.

What? Inflation and interest rates fell dramatically by the end of Reagan's first term. What economic variables support that Reagan produced the "worst economic collapse since the Great Depression"?

Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang

LOL! The US has carried significant public debt since 1836. It took us that long to pay off all that Revolutionary War debt, and once we had accomplished it, people began to ask why we had done it, and there weren't many good answers. It was basically just a matter of national pride for the new nation at that point. Meanwhile, there is absolutely no reason why a national government should not carry debt, and virtually all do. Living in some Protestant work-ethic world where debt is the instrument of the devil is simply silly.


What is the debt-to-GDP ratio of Japan? Greece by the way is a teeny-tiny backwater economy that does not have a currency it could hjave devalued nor a central stabilization fund it could have turned to. The problem with Greece is meanwhile not Greece. It is the banks that are tied to Greece.

Your response in the first part is non responsive as I was not talking about paying off the debt, not even about a balanced budget but the need to get the deficit at what most economists would call a sustainable level.

Next you talk to Greece as if it is the only country that is in trouble piling up so much debt. What about Spain, with France not behind. You should know that Japanese debt is mostly held by it's public so not at risk to market forces. BTW, how has keeping interest rates low for more than a decade worked out for the Japanese economy?

Originally Posted by JP Hochbaum

Because out of all the budgets out there, it is the best. It decreases spending in areas that don't create jobs in the US. And the tax increases don't decrease aggregate demand.

How is it better than Obama's budget? Obama's budget is more expansionary, offers less tax hikes, and fewer spending cuts. How does a higher reduction of financial assets support your case for higher inflation? How does defense spending not create jobs?