I didn't say the Constitution dealt with this, I said "the authors of the US Constitution explicitly believed"; that is, they expressed these views separately from the Constitution.
Well, and that's why I responded. I'm not trying to be pedantic; these distinctions matter a great deal, because a free society, a democratic socialist society, and a social democracy are three very different kinds of society, with very different levels of wealth and economic success.
But this sounds like a distraction from what I was talking about.
No, it's not a distraction. The second statement you made "In fact, you can't have free market capitalism without restrictions on money in politics, and still have any kind of democracy." is also clearly false. There are many forms of democracy that are possible without restrictions on money in politics. What you seem to be saying is that majoritarianism and/or the progressive ideal of rational government are impossible without restrictions on money in politics. Neither of those two are desirable forms of democracy as far as I'm concerned.
I suggest reading Milton Friedman "Capitalism and Freedom", Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", Ludwig von Mises "Socialism", or Schumpeter's "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy".
Well, that's all socialist Bernie Sanders is using as his model.
I assume Bernie Sanders knows enough about socialism to understand what that means.
What you are saying is that what he is really doing is performing the same kind of "bait and switch" that "national socialists" performed in 1920's Germany; if you look at their 1920 party program, perhaps you're right. That makes him even less acceptable as a candidate.
It's doesn't take an authoritative [sic] government, just people who are willing to pool their resources for the common good
People willing to pool their resources for the common good is what a free market accomplishes.
What Bernie Sanders and socialism advocate is some people "willing" to pool other people's resources for what is ostensibly the common good. No matter whether you think (like Sanders) that such coercion is justified and useful, don't try to pretend that it is voluntary; such coercion takes authoritarian government.
(Whether government is ever "authoritative" is debatable.)
It is obvious what I meant when I mentioned Europe. Social democracy.
You juxtaposed "communism" and "democratic socialism". Of course, you were confused about the difference between "democratic socialism" and "social democracy"; don't try to pretend otherwise.
Sweden is nominally a constitutional monarchy. In practice, it is a social democracy, modeled on the German welfare state. In no way is Sweden a "socialist" country. In fact, on the Heritage index of economic freedoms, it ranks quite highly. http://www.heritage.org/index/...
In fact, you can't have free market capitalism without restrictions on money in politics, and still have any kind of democracy.
If by "democracy" you mean "strict majority rule" aka "mob rule", you are correct. But that is only one form of democracy, and not a very desirable one. In fact, most democracies are set up with significant safeguards against majority rule.
When it comes to wealth and personal property, the authors of the US Constitution explicitly believed that private property and wealth needs to be protected against the desires and whims of the majority.
You are talking about communism, not democratic socialism like in parts of Europe.
Europeans have social democracies, not democratic socialism. From Wikipedia:
Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production.
Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, interventions to promote greater equality in the distribution of income and wealth, and a commitment to representative democracy.
Yes, the difference matters a great deal. I know of no European country that is governed as a democratic socialist country. Many countries nominally have "democratic socialist parties", but they largely do not actually pursue democratic socialism anymore.
You're the one telling me about how the policy was created by white people so that they could protect their higher salaries
No, I was telling your that the policy was created by progressives:
Yes. And he's getting fucked hard by the same people who raise the minimum wage: progressives.
Now, while progressives are largely both white and advocate racist policies, the converse isn't true: most whites are neither progressives nor do they advocate racist policies.
Your thinking again betrays your deep-seated racism, namely generalizing from some members of a "race" (here, white progressives) to all of them.
The stated intention of minimum wage laws is to "make unskilled jobs an alternative to crime". The actual force it creates is one that drives unskilled workers out of the labor market entirely and thereby increases crime. So, the force is opposite to the intent.
It doesn't do that, though. The jobs need to get done, and if nobody knows how to do the job, someone will train them or the world will change so that the jobs don't need to get done.
You're postulating a highly inelastic demand for low-skilled labor, which is ludicrous. In reality, many businesses will simply close, or they will automate, or they will raise prices.
It doesn't matter how high you raise the minimum wage, people would still hire minorities, because as soon as you raise the minimum wage, the white people start demanding more.
(Wow, you really are a racist through and through, aren't you?)
So you're saying that the real effect of minimum wage is that everybody's wages go up. Well, then prices go up accordingly. How does anybody win from that?
Hmm. I'm not sold, as that's an opinion piece that links to an opinion piece as the source, and it smells like someone trying to fight the $15/hr idea by linking it to racism.
Well, I'm not going to give you a complete reader on the history of the minimum wage. If you want a single academic source from someone who really knows what he is talking about, read Thomas Sowell, a black economist.
Buuuut a lot of things around that time had links to racism (and not just black people), so it wouldn't surprise me if it's true.
A lot of things today have links to racism, in particular among progressives, because now as then, their view is that blacks are inferior to whites and require the help of government to succeed. The details of the pseudo-scientific justifications then and now differ, but the consequences of progressive policies are as bad now as they were then.
Even if it were, it's irrelevant to the push for a higher min wage being good or bad.
It is quite relevant, because the purpose and effect of minimum wage laws still is the same now as it was then: to price low-skilled and non-union workers out of the market. Of course, since politics has changed slightly, these days the political propaganda surrounding the minimum wage is slightly different.
The argument was that Blacks had been fucked over so badly that squalor was an upgrade for many of them, and that whites needed to be protected from the influx of cheap labor that would result in permitting them to work for any amount of money.
So, in different words, you agree.
The minimum wage was originally intended to be a living wage, because creating conditions where people are willing to work for less than that is just a form of slavery.
The rationalizations and justifications you people come up with for your racism and bigotry are fascinating.
To avoid it being slavery, you have to avoid it being mandatory. This is why I favor a MGI which would cover the basic costs of living. Of course, one commie plot just leads to the next;
You're ranting incoherently. MGI has nothing to do with "communism". It's not even worth picking apart the rest of your drivel.
It's the conservatives that consistently oppose raising the minimum wage to even meet inflation,
Correct.
let alone to actually provide a living wage, which was the original intent of the thing.
You're correct, but you're leaving out half the story. The original intent of minimum wage was to provide higher wages to white workers by pricing black workers out of the market. It was a racist policy intended to hurt blacks and benefit whites. It didn't even cost jobs, it just condemned lots of people to permanent unemployment.
Those aren't "forces", they are intentions. Everybody across the political spectrum shares those intentions.
The delusion of progressives is that (1) they are the only ones having those intentions, and (2) that the policies they propose actually help achieve those goals, when both economic theory and decades of experience show them to be ineffective or harmful.
Granted, he doesn't say the family size that decent living would support, but lacking statements to the contrary I assume at least a three-person household
The minimum wage was rooted in racism. The argument was something like that blacks were so inferior that they were willing to live in squalor, and that whites needed to be protected from that. That's roughly the same argument that progressives today use to advance tariffs and immigration restrictions.
You know that the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation in over two decades, right? So if your wages are doing even more poorly than the minimum wage, you're getting fucked and hard
Yes. And he's getting fucked hard by the same people who raise the minimum wage: progressives.
Or do you actually have a problem with his values but are too... something (insecure? incapable?) to actually mount a coherent moral argument against them?
What "moral values" would that be? Destroying a company that a lot of people worked hard to build, just in order to feed his own ego? Of course, if he owns the company, it's his right to destroy it. That doesn't make it a moral thing to do.
Or we could of course go the route of public housing with standardized, non-market-based prices, but something tells me you wouldn't be a fan of that bit of hard-nosed realism
You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... With decades-long waiting lists for even getting one of those drafty, cramped, noisy apartments? Thanks, I'll take US-style capitalism over your "hard-nosed realism" any day.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say the Constitution dealt with this, I said "the authors of the US Constitution explicitly believed"; that is, they expressed these views separately from the Constitution.
Well, and that's why I responded. I'm not trying to be pedantic; these distinctions matter a great deal, because a free society, a democratic socialist society, and a social democracy are three very different kinds of society, with very different levels of wealth and economic success.
No, it's not a distraction. The second statement you made "In fact, you can't have free market capitalism without restrictions on money in politics, and still have any kind of democracy." is also clearly false. There are many forms of democracy that are possible without restrictions on money in politics. What you seem to be saying is that majoritarianism and/or the progressive ideal of rational government are impossible without restrictions on money in politics. Neither of those two are desirable forms of democracy as far as I'm concerned.
I suggest reading Milton Friedman "Capitalism and Freedom", Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", Ludwig von Mises "Socialism", or Schumpeter's "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy".
It had everything to do with that. It also has everything to do with the fact that the US is so prosperous and free compared to the rest of the world.
I assume Bernie Sanders knows enough about socialism to understand what that means.
What you are saying is that what he is really doing is performing the same kind of "bait and switch" that "national socialists" performed in 1920's Germany; if you look at their 1920 party program, perhaps you're right. That makes him even less acceptable as a candidate.
People willing to pool their resources for the common good is what a free market accomplishes.
What Bernie Sanders and socialism advocate is some people "willing" to pool other people's resources for what is ostensibly the common good. No matter whether you think (like Sanders) that such coercion is justified and useful, don't try to pretend that it is voluntary; such coercion takes authoritarian government.
(Whether government is ever "authoritative" is debatable.)
You juxtaposed "communism" and "democratic socialism". Of course, you were confused about the difference between "democratic socialism" and "social democracy"; don't try to pretend otherwise.
And the difference matters a great deal.
And that's precisely the reason why it ought to be changed.
Sweden is nominally a constitutional monarchy. In practice, it is a social democracy, modeled on the German welfare state. In no way is Sweden a "socialist" country. In fact, on the Heritage index of economic freedoms, it ranks quite highly. http://www.heritage.org/index/...
If by "democracy" you mean "strict majority rule" aka "mob rule", you are correct. But that is only one form of democracy, and not a very desirable one. In fact, most democracies are set up with significant safeguards against majority rule.
When it comes to wealth and personal property, the authors of the US Constitution explicitly believed that private property and wealth needs to be protected against the desires and whims of the majority.
Europeans have social democracies, not democratic socialism. From Wikipedia:
Yes, the difference matters a great deal. I know of no European country that is governed as a democratic socialist country. Many countries nominally have "democratic socialist parties", but they largely do not actually pursue democratic socialism anymore.
Not sending reports to Oracle is a good idea: use open source alternatives and submit the reports there.
The trouble with that is that Columbia didn't actually commit a copyright violation.
The country is called "Colombia", not "Columbia".
Look for MonoRover or eRover; they are self-balancing scooters just like the Segway but without the annoying handle.
With Hillary, it's pretty self-evident:
http://jdelgado.deviantart.com...
No, I was telling your that the policy was created by progressives:
Now, while progressives are largely both white and advocate racist policies, the converse isn't true: most whites are neither progressives nor do they advocate racist policies.
Your thinking again betrays your deep-seated racism, namely generalizing from some members of a "race" (here, white progressives) to all of them.
The stated intention of minimum wage laws is to "make unskilled jobs an alternative to crime". The actual force it creates is one that drives unskilled workers out of the labor market entirely and thereby increases crime. So, the force is opposite to the intent.
"Forces" and "intentions" are different things.
You're postulating a highly inelastic demand for low-skilled labor, which is ludicrous. In reality, many businesses will simply close, or they will automate, or they will raise prices.
(Wow, you really are a racist through and through, aren't you?)
So you're saying that the real effect of minimum wage is that everybody's wages go up. Well, then prices go up accordingly. How does anybody win from that?
Well, I'm not going to give you a complete reader on the history of the minimum wage. If you want a single academic source from someone who really knows what he is talking about, read Thomas Sowell, a black economist.
A lot of things today have links to racism, in particular among progressives, because now as then, their view is that blacks are inferior to whites and require the help of government to succeed. The details of the pseudo-scientific justifications then and now differ, but the consequences of progressive policies are as bad now as they were then.
It is quite relevant, because the purpose and effect of minimum wage laws still is the same now as it was then: to price low-skilled and non-union workers out of the market. Of course, since politics has changed slightly, these days the political propaganda surrounding the minimum wage is slightly different.
So, in different words, you agree.
The rationalizations and justifications you people come up with for your racism and bigotry are fascinating.
You're ranting incoherently. MGI has nothing to do with "communism". It's not even worth picking apart the rest of your drivel.
Correct.
You're correct, but you're leaving out half the story. The original intent of minimum wage was to provide higher wages to white workers by pricing black workers out of the market. It was a racist policy intended to hurt blacks and benefit whites. It didn't even cost jobs, it just condemned lots of people to permanent unemployment.
Those aren't "forces", they are intentions. Everybody across the political spectrum shares those intentions.
The delusion of progressives is that (1) they are the only ones having those intentions, and (2) that the policies they propose actually help achieve those goals, when both economic theory and decades of experience show them to be ineffective or harmful.
If you're supporting the current administration's party, your intent must have been good whatever you say/do.
If you are critical of the current administration, you intent must have been terrorism.
Works for the IRS.
The minimum wage was rooted in racism. The argument was something like that blacks were so inferior that they were willing to live in squalor, and that whites needed to be protected from that. That's roughly the same argument that progressives today use to advance tariffs and immigration restrictions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ca...
Yes. And he's getting fucked hard by the same people who raise the minimum wage: progressives.
What "moral values" would that be? Destroying a company that a lot of people worked hard to build, just in order to feed his own ego? Of course, if he owns the company, it's his right to destroy it. That doesn't make it a moral thing to do.
You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... With decades-long waiting lists for even getting one of those drafty, cramped, noisy apartments? Thanks, I'll take US-style capitalism over your "hard-nosed realism" any day.