ohboyherewego.jpg

They really need to teach logic classes in public schools

Well China, was it worth it for you to kidnap white Americans and use them as slaves?

Now they are ruining your economy the same way black people are enhancing America.

>they don't realize no maximum wage is harmful to the economy too
laughingbitches.jpg

Who's this homo?

Wealth is the product of man's capacity to survive.

A maximum wage would give too much power to the employer.

because it raises the cost on services and products and ruins the economy

>mfw no-one can provide an answer

>>440633

how would china ever kidnap black people?

Because it's not in the interests of the wealthy, who dictate government policy and determine which economic theories are deemed respectable. There you go, thread over, it's exactly what you thought it was.

>>440666
wage ceiling reduces incentives for innovation

why spend time thinking of a hot new business when you cant make millions anymore?

>they think the most powerful and richest people in the world work for wages

>>440685
Because you can still make a lot of money, just not gigantic sums of money.

You don't need big incentives, just incentives, period.

Let's say the wealthy didn't give a shit about their feelings on the maximum wage and their incentive to make more products. You would probably have to dump money BACK into your business... What happens when more money is circulating in your business? A greater production of goods. What happens when the supply is greater than the demand? Exactly.

>>440689
Good point, an income ceiling would be much fairer.

>>440685
Wages have never been the incentive for innovation.

>>440685
Lies and propaganda. Top earners don't innovate shit, they just sit in their CEO position and let the company run. The misconception that these million dollar earners are on some other level of intellect is completely garbage.

If two workers spend 8 hours a day doing WORK then they should be entitled to RELATIVELY similar pay. I'm not saying that someone flipping burgers should make as much as a doctor, but there is no excuse for having some people earning 20k compared to those earning 10 mil on a single bonus check.

>scummy hippies don't understand the difference between a wage and a salary
>don't realize that much of what makes the wealthy powerful is not their earned income

>>440689
>you think they don't have annual earnings, which is the equivalent of an annual wage
durp, sure is hard to think things through before posting

>>440685
Theoretically... if there was a maximum it wouldn't be a few million, it would be there to stop people coming as rich as the 1%...

>>440704
>they just sit in their CEO position and let the company run.

This is what uninformed hippies actually believe.

>>440718
Of course they worked hard as fuck when they were setting things up, what do you think CEO's of multinationals do on a daily basis?

>>440704
ceos do quite alot. dario minoli took over ducati in the late 90's when it was near bankrupt and brang it to 400million euros in profits in the 2000's

vik pandit brang citigroup back to profitability after gfc, dick fuld brang lehman back to profitability after the early 90's struggle for them (lol @ this example)

RAPE KILL AND EAT THE RICH.

>>440704

you really are ignorant.

do you understand how many responsibilities they have to make decisions to pass down to managers who pass them down the chain of command?

any decision they make can make or break a company.

>>440718
How many CEOs do you know, kid? Do you have any idea what they do? Since you obviously know a lot about how deserving these CEOs are of their million dollar bonus checks on top of salary, why don't you tell us what they do in a day.

>>440722
Snort cocaine off hookers and golf.

>>440735
He was the only man working for the company when it made it's rise, was he?

He was the only person who did anything for the company the whole time, right?

He's a one man business, didn't have any employees at all doing any of the work?

No one else at higher level management positions making any sort of decisions?

He just did it alllllllll by himself so he deserves 400x as much money as anyone else does... right?

>>440742
Not the guy who you are replying to.
Better question is, how many CEOs do YOU know that actually just sit on their lazy asses all day reaping the profits of his/her meager workers?

>>440742
Why don't YOU tell us what exactly they actually do.

>>440669
If China got flooded with dark muslims the way the rest of Europe did. How did Europe do it?

>>440742
I have a few CEOs/directors in my family. they work harder than you in a day than you will over your entire fucking life. you really have no idea

if you don't want somebody to become rich then don't buy shit from them, if other people do that is their prerogative

>2011
>debating price ceilings

Marxists truly are the creationist/global warming deniers of economics

>>440761
>I have a few CEOs/directors in my family.
White male born into privilege detected.

>>440761
Okay, so tell us what they do on a daily basis.

Question: how many of you anons defending the honor of CEOs in general do you know and how many have you ever met?

>mfw you're defending their asses because its demanded by your warped sense of productivity

Those Harvard grads aren't going to NASA or becoming doctors. They're going straight to Goldman Sachs and Wall Street.

>>440768
>implying that isn't something to be proud of
>mfw people are actually ashamed of coming from good families

Work is about doing something productive in order to achieve something. It can be working on a farm to produce food, or working in an office doing paperwork for a business. It is ultimately just a task, action, service, or anything else that you don't particularly want to do, and therefore you require compensation in the form of something you need. Money comes into play by being the most liquid form of trade currency, and therefore the most convenient form of compensation for work.

Work itself all hinges on time spent. Time is the one thing we all have a finite amount of, and it is the one thing we can never get back. Most tasks are compensated based on the amount of time you expend performing your work. Everyone has to spend their valuable time on work in order to be compensated and get the things they need/want.

If salaries and wages are all based on compensation for time put forth, then why does one person deserve exponentially more compensation for their time? Obviously people will argue supply and demand and claim that there aren't many people who can perform the task of a CEO. Obviously this can be answered with the fact that there is only 1 position for a CEO at a company. Also the amount of knowledge and education required would need to be factored in, but this is still only a matter of years put into education which would not rationally or logically account for such a disparity in work compensation.

So... someone justify this for me, please.

>>440766
you pretentious fuck

>>440778
>2011
>being proud of something you have no control over

>>440761
nice theories bro

>>440750
Who said they're sitting on their lazy asses? I said that sit on their POSITION and do nothing.

This means that they fufill their role in the company as CEO and perform their duties as necessary. They typically don't make major changes to the company direction and they just leave the ship sailing due forward in whichever direction the previous management pointed them.

Understand what I'm saying?

>>440761
>if you don't want somebody to become rich then don't buy shit from them
I don't want to give money to Monsanto, for instance, but that's not going to stop them from trying to monopolize the food supply.

>>440761
You're retarded and brainwashed if you believe this.

EVERYONE can work their fucking ass off at their job you STUPID FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.

Just because they work hard as a CEO doesn't mean they are suddenly doing divine work and have a godly right to be paid obscene amounts of money. They work the same amount of time as everyone else you stupid fuck, stop being so fucking brainless.

>>440778
Provide us with the names of your family members companies. Let's all have a look at their financials at see how wonderful a job your family is doing running the company. They're CEOs, after all... that means they MUST be smarter and better than the rest of us! So OBVIOUSLY they'll be raking in record profits consistently!

>>440785
These things give you your identity, they allow you to express yourself as an individual, you would be nothing without these institutions, of course you should be prideful of them.
>>440773
wake up at 5
get to work at 6-6:30
run around all day
meetings with clients
board meetings
staff meetings
do deals
manage the business
only get home at 8 or later

and your part time job is so stressful that you actually have the time to make pretty signs and protest this shit

>>440810
that's a real good idea isn't it...

>>440749
He's the commander, all the decisions rested on his shoulders. He was also the investor(assuming), so it was his money on the line, not the employees. They were going to get paid anyways, at no risk to them. But the employer risked his capital to hire them, hoping that in return they would net him a profit. There's no two ways about it. The worker accepts the wage given to him by the employer for the trade off that the employer takes the risk of losing money on that employee if they don't do their job right. If the employee is a good worker, the employer benefits because HE is the one who made that risk, not the employee.

Everyone else below the leader is subordinate, that is the trade off for him risking his money instead of those he employs.

>>440814
You've never worked a part-time job at a fast food joint or grocery store or ANY piece of shit job that no one wants, otherwise you would know that it is FAAAAAAAAR more stressful than a cushy CEO job.

You're a brainless fool, and your posts prove that. You don't have a fucking clue what a CEO does, and you have no idea what kind of hell a dead end entry level job is. The people at the bottom end of the totem pole are going through their own terrible and stressful lives you little fucking twat, better remember that when you grow the fuck up.

>>440606
My biggest argument against unlimited pay is how much we pay the fuck up in our society.

If you tank a company, lose thousands of jobs and cost your investors millions- You win a $200,000,000 "golden parachute" severance fee.

We reward people for failing. All you have to do is run a large company and it doesn't matter how badly you preform. The problem is, this model makes for shittier business and destroys thousands or even millions of lives in the process.

In the last economic meltdown people should have been sent to jail, but instead they were made richer than ever.

Sure as fuck we need a maximum wage. People with wealth have abused the system and we shouldn't reward failure.

>>440814
LOOOOOOOOOOL
YOU DON'T HAVE A CEO IN THE FAMILY
YOU'VE NEVER WORKED A DAY IN YOUR LIFE
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A CEO DOES
YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW A BUSINESS IS RUN
YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT FAIL TROLL

GET
THE
FUCK
OUT

>>440800
at the ceo level you arent "working" youre devising corporate strategy, everything you do is looking 5 years down the road

youre in charge of coming up with ideas to keep up with demand, changing economies, technologies etc. you fuck up a strategy and your company is gone

look at kodak. theor ceos were to fucking stupid to understand the potential for digital cameras, now their stock trades at $1 compared to $90 13 years ago

>>440685

Please name one known conservative that was innovative? I fucking laugh at you.

>>440665
lol, no, you could pay more people more money with a maximum wage instead of paying one lobster bisque sucking queef way more money than he's worth.

Trust me, you can buy a lot more talent with a lot less money.

simple question:

would the quality of life for someone making 100 million per year be that much worse if it was only 75 million per year? would they go hungry? would they not be able to afford their luxury cars, vacations, and private yachts?

CONCEPT TIME, FAGGOTS.

MONEY = POWER
THIS IS UNDENIABLE IN MODERN SOCIETY, MONEY IS LIQUID FUCKING POWER WHICH CAN BE USED TO GET PEOPLE TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. THIS IS WHAT EMPLOYMENT IS

IN A SYSTEM WHERE MONEY = POWER IT IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NECESSARY TO REGULATE HOW MUCH POWER EACH PERSON CAN GET, OTHERWISE YOU CIRCUMVENT DEMOCRACY.

THEREFORE, UNCHECKED WAGES AND MASSING OF WEALTH GOES AGAINST DEMOCRACY.

WE'RE ALL PRO DEMOCRACY, I ASSUME? CAN'T JUST LET THE BILLIONAIRES GET A BIGGER AND BIGGER PIECE OF THE PIE AKA MONEY SUPPLY AND EXPECT SHIT TO NOT GET RUINED AND CORRUPTED, GUYS.

>>440839
>at the ceo level you arent "working" youre devising corporate strategy, everything you do is looking 5 years down the road
I bet the CEOs of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, and Washington Mutual had a sterling 5 year plan in 2003?

>>440814
Your list is a bit redundant. What part of meeting with the board, staff, and clients is highly stressful? Making deals in my opinion would be difficult, but that is because I don't have much experience with that.

Many people work the same or more hours a day, so I don't see how that should factor into a CEO earning such huge sums of money.

even better idea:

instead of creating a wage ceiling, create a threshold, where anything made above would be fed back into social programs and charities

plenty of room for incentives and innovation

>>440685
Who said anything about reducing the maximum wage to under millions?

We mean no more billionaires. No one's ideas or labor is worth billions. It's a bullshit concept to sell. Oh, and you're not going to get that rich ever because you weren't born into it so stop towing their line.

>>440735
Even if a CEO totally fucks a company they are rewarded for it.
How many regular employees do you know get sent home with severance packages worth tens of millions of dollars? None. Golden parachutes suck and not all CEOs are the captains of industry you want them to be.

>>440839
YEAH, AND DO YOU THINK THAT THERE WAS A WHOLE FUCKING BOARD OF OTHER EXECS ADVISING THAT CEO TO RESPOND TO DIGITAL CAMERAS?

OF COURSE! HE WAS JUST AN EXCEPTIONALLY STUPID FUCK AND THOUGHT HE KNEW BEST AND ENDED UP DESTROYING THE COMPANY.

MOST NON-COMPLETELY FUCKING RETARDED PEOPLE WILL JUST LET THE SYSTEM FOLLOW THE PATH LAID OUT BEFORE THEM WHEN THEY ASSUME POWER. THEY'LL REACT TO WHATEVER SHIT POPS UP AND LISTEN TO THEIR FELLOW MANAGEMENT AND STAFF AND THEY WILL WATCH THE BUSINESS SLOWLY GROW DUE TO OPERATIONS. THAT IS THE FUCKING NATURE OF THE SYSTEM WITH THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY. THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF BUSINESS RISK INVOLVED IN CEOS IS MINIMAL AS LONG AS THEY HIRE SOMEONE WHO IS RELATIVELY COMPETENT. THATS THE POINT... RELATIVELY COMPETENT, NOT SUPER GENIUS. MOST DON'T DESERVE THE CASH THEY'RE GETTING, AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT NO ONE SHOULD GET ENOUGH MONEY TO RETIRE ON FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES WITH 1 YEARS WORK.

>>440784

I'm sorry but if I saw someone seriously trying to argue that the earth was flat I would know that they are a complete joke, same goes for Marxists.

>>440685
[citation needed]

>>440700
>Wages have never been the incentive for innovation.

Exactly. People who think the opposite don't have a creative fucking bone in their body.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/09/fired_hp_ceo_leo_apotheker_lea.html

These CEOs are all just better than us, guys... they deserve every penny!

Sarcasm aside... I could easily retire off that single bonus check with decent investment. Although it's looking more and more like the world is going to hit a serious economic downturn so investments aren't looking too good...

>>440814
No.
That sounds like middle management you pretentious fuck.
CEOs
Set strategy
Sit at board meetings
Decide which department to ax

>>440718
>implying most executives don't play solitaire all day and shit their pants every day that someone might discover how incompetent they are.

Protip for all defenders of the free market: stop defending CEOs. The corporate model has been propped up by Pentagon funding and state-subsidies to the military industrial complex, as well as tariffs and regulatory capture, for a long time. Firms are guaranteed a source of revenue from the state, so they can deliberately pursue higher costs and more wasteful modes of production just in order to mark up prices. This is where push distribution, mass marketing, planned obsolescence, waste accumulation etc. originated. In a true free market there would be more workers co-ops and small entrepreneurs. Sort of like the LETS stuff.

>>440863
of course bad ceos exist, and they do get paid exuberant sums of money due to contractual obligations

sure it sucks, dont know what else to say other than structure executive contracts without guaranteed bonuses, or some sort of performance based compensation

>>440749
>mfw Americans still believe in Medieval social structures of noble kingly leaders close to god who control and do everything right.

Alright /pol/,

The idea of a maximum wage is stupid, even my left-leaning arse understands that. Hell, I wouldn't even mind lowering the minimum wage, the problem is, I find it hard to believe people on the minimum wage can actually survive with such high costs of living (I make a lowly 40k a year without a college degree, and even I find that hard enough to live on, I couldn't imagine minimum).

Why aren't we able to tie the minimum wage of an establishment to the highest wage of that establishment? To me, that seems a lot fairer, and makes more sense than creating a maximum wage/lowering the already ridiculously low minimum wage.

Thoughts /pol/?

>>440916
I had a friend a while back who said modern capitalism (dominated by corporations) is nothing more than feudalism's hot sister.

an upper limit on how much to compensate a laborer for his/her services?

>>440922
the minimum wage in 1970, in the value of money today was something around 74-76 dollars.

getting rid of the minimum wage would be a benefit for society regardless of what the living conditions are, but earning less than it would be sustainable if there wasn't so much inflation caused by government, as well as overburdening regulation and overhead imposed on businesses by government.

>>440904
Funny how performance based compensation for everyone else is being cut, but not CEOs.

They get paid no matter what, it doesn't just "suck." It is wrong and rewarding incompetence just encourages the same behavior.
You don't know what else to say because you're a cheerleading ass clown.

>>440943
>overburdening regulation

I was listening until you said that.

>>440950
Still, I'd like you to expand on why you think lowering, or abolishing, the minimum wage is a good idea. Like I said, I'm still amazed people can actually survive on it.

>>440904
eat a shit sandwich if you're actually advocating paying utter and complete failure just because of some fucking contract.

I mean, is any failure worth the reward of hundreds of millions of dollars? It sounds like a fucking scam to me.

>>440922

strong lack of economic understanding in this post. raising the minimum wage doesn't change wage disparity, it increases unemployment.

>>440943
I'm guessing you're not a fan of the 40 hour work week or paid time off either?

>>440975
it has to be coupled with a shortening of the work week. :)

>>440922
There's a similar system in Japan, but it is followed by tradition.
They seem to do ok.

>>440975
>raising the minimum wage doesn't change wage disparity, it increases unemployment.

What if... Get this, what if... What if we lower the minimum wage so we can pay CEOs who do nothing more? Brilliant.

>>440643
>they don't realize no maximum wage is harmful to the economy too
Dictated by whom?

And for what reason?

>>440989

Why would a CEO's wage lower with an increase in minimum wage? He's not going to cut his own wage, he's going to cut the number of minimum wage employees.

Also, CEOs don't "do nothing". You're fucking delusional if you think that and I'm pretty sure you don't even know what a CEO is.

As far as partners who invest their own money into a company a receive a large profit... I'm sure we'd be much better off if they didn't invest their money back into the economy. Let's create conditions where the wealthy are more inclined to pull their money from the markets. That should benefit... well no one, but it's good to stick it to the rich, right?

>>440742
heres what ceos do
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koSQ5MWrCdc
lol captcha interns

>>440950
The regulatory commission stopped Peter Schiff from hiring more workers because it would violate their regulations.

HOW DOES THAT NOT HURT SOCIETY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nauh6A5HOtg

>>441010
>Why would a CEO's wage lower with an increase in minimum wage? He's not going to cut his own wage, he's going to cut the number of minimum wage employees.

And therein lie the problem with you morons.

>>441010
>Let's create conditions where the wealthy are more inclined to pull their money from the markets. That should benefit... well no one, but it's good to stick it to the rich, right?
I don't get people obsession with "sticking it to the rich". How in the fuck could that improve their lives or anyone else's?

A worker whose labor wouldn't be worth at least the mandatory minimum wage is ineligible for hiring into a job he/she can do, therefore minimum wage is fundamentally flawed.

The logical responses to increasing Minimum Wage:
• intensification of workload
• enhancement of worker liability
• expansion of job functions
• layoff
• passive evasion (outsourcing of remaining vacancies)
• active evasion (total layoff and total outsourcing)
• raising the prices of products and services

Among them, the paths of least resistances shall be sought.

As for maximum wage, ...

>>441042

Economic brofist, playa.

>>441042
You can't post that here. Libfags cannot into reason. Also, facts are racist.

>>441042

That graph makes no sense to me ;_;

>>441070

Basically all it's saying is that there's a natural equilibrium between wages and employment. If you force the natural wage to rise, the market will counterbalance by increasing unemployment. It's ECO 101.

Wealth cap of 50 million, all other money goes to global 100% transparent internet fund for feeding the hungry, healthcare for all, direct electronic government programs online.

>>441042
>rational economics
>pol

Get that sorcery out of here. Why do you hate poor people?

>>441042

This. Most liberals don't know basic economics.

>>441096
most people in general don't know basic economics. i'm willing to bet you're no exception

>>441096

Lol at most respected economists being liberal, but "most liberals not knowing basic economics." That statement is only true in the context that "most conservatives do not know basic economics as much as liberals do."

>>441084
The shit you learn in lower division classes isn't exactly correct. Based under a buttload of assumptions, yes that's how the model works.

>>441084
Likewise, if the wage were to drop, the poor would all starve to death, causing unemployment to decrease... it makes perfect sense.

>>441103
Most of the smart people on /pol/ are econ majors.

A firm or an aspect thereof whose tasks costs would be worth more than the mandatory maximum wage is ineligible to hire a qualified worker for the corresponding job, therefore maximum wage is fundamentally flawed.

The logical responses to decreasing Maximum Wage:
• disintensification of workload
• degradation of worker liability
• contraction of job functions
• resignation
• unnecessary division of labor
• passive evasion (insourcing of remaining clients or tasks)
• active evasion (total resignation and total insourcing)
• raising the prices of other products and cheaper services

Among them, the paths of least resistances shall be sought.

>>441122
If you believe that that argument isn't a fallacy they you would benefit from a lower division logic class.

There is a maximum wage, kinda. At some level Big companies pay higher taxes than anyone else giving back to the nation to stir up economy and prevent them from just hogging everything with help of some anti-monopoly laws, in theory. In reality Big Corporations can pull a double Irish because there is no one regulating this.

So there you have it.

>>441123

>the poor would all starve to death
Why don't we dissect this interesting piece of left-wing propaganda.

a) The vast majority of households below the poverty line earn *above* minimum wage. Half of the people who earn minimum wage are under 25. Most of them work part-time, have never been married, and lack a college and sometimes even a high school diploma. These are not single mothers with 4 kids. These are kids living at home who want work experience.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2010.htm
http://epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=87

b) Ignores the difference between real and nominal income. Even if you earn $5/hour, if the market is lowering the price of everything you buy, then you are comparatively healthy. This is why most people in the US below the poverty line are more in danger of obesity and heart disease than starvation.
c) The minimum wage is not a floor that raises everyone's pay. The minimum wage is a hoop you have to jump over in order to get a job that is raised increasingly higher. If you don't have the productivity that justifies it, you will be turned down for a job. It discriminates against the poor.

>>441094
>>441096
>>441042
Never raise the minimum wage ever! No matter what! Not even if interest rates, inflation, and the cost of living go up!

>fuck it

>>441131
>LoL at the picture and all the big words.
If you can't produce enough money to live on, you aren't working hard enough, or you are not doing something right. It is not the governments job to take care of you.

>>440606

In the 1950s there was a maximum wage. The Republican Government set a top tax rate of 94%; it was, essentially, a cap on earnings.

Conservatives regard the 1950s as America's "golden age", it's a period they want to return to.

Pic related.

>>441152

Tell that to the rich. They were just given trillions of taxpayers money for breaking their own businesses.

>>441126
>Most of the self-important people on /pol/ are econ majors.

Oh you and your "applied math" and "belief that money has value".

>economics! just a crippled/retarded form of psychology!

>>441152
>It is not the governments job to take care of you.

I'm pretty sure it is but by the other hand I haven't sleep, it is 4 AM here and the fucking mexicans next door won't stop their fucking party and the police isn't doing shit so if you prove evidence to the contrary I'll bite.

>>441167
It IS in the governments best interest to make sure you have enough resources to stay alive and enough work to be productive. It is NOT the governments job to take care of you. If you fuck yourself up, you die, and it is your fault, since by definition, YOU fucked yourself up.

>>441151
Absolutely. In fact, the minimum wage should be abolished. It's really just a "fire everyone who can't earn this much" law.

>>441047
>>441059
>>441070
>>441094
>>441096
There has been ample motive to dissect Minimum Wage, but the full ramifications of Maximum Wage are being considered, both from the worker's perspective and the firm's.

>>441166
0/10

>>441145
>Even if you earn $5/hour, if the market is lowering the price of everything you buy, then you are comparatively healthy. This is why most people in the US below the poverty line are more in danger of obesity and heart disease than starvation.

Meanwhile minimum wage is something like 7$, and food prices keep rising.

The obesity and heart disease is because junk food is cheaper/quicker than real food.

The more money you make, the more tax breaks you get. Warren Buffett only pays 17.4% of his total earning in tax. That's is a lot less than the average Joe.

>Last year Warren Buffett, who has a $50bn personal fortune, paid $6.9m in federal taxes – 17.4% of his taxable income. The other 20 people in his office paid between 33% and 41%.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/18/obama-millionaire-tax-war

>>441172
Well I'm not that other guy, I'm the guy with the beaners next door preventing him from sleeping and I have to be a productive memeber of society every day of the week...anyways.

That is what I'm saying, the contract between citizen and goverment should remind everyone that the goverment has some obligations for which we pay them taxes but by no means is the hand of God. So if you ate you way towards a diabetic coma the goverment should only be responsable of the health care you pay for but shouldn't spoon feed you.

>Implying abolishing the minimum wage wouldn't devalue all jobs close to it.


Are you niggers serious? Anyone who makes a little over, or the minimum, will be worse off if we remove the minimum wage. It would devalue every job that comes close it it - Hell, I'd say it would devalue the majority of all jobs.

Shrug to China Randfags.

>>441187
You are aware that any citizen can call INS if they suspect illegals? I suggest you call them tomorrow.

Also, I am pro-welfare, but I believe that only those who have a genuine disability should get the welfare. People whose legs were shot off in a war, people who have a seizure disorder, etc.

Don't get the impression that I hate the poor.

>>441189
This, I just want to remind everyone the minimum wage is supposedly calculated on the minimum someone would need to survive and perhaps prosper.

Removing this is a truly terrible idea.

>>441186
Warren Buffet paid a lot more than the average Joe, and more than everyone in his office. Still, there are always going to be these sorts of imbalances when you have a tax system based on income, and not all income can be accounted for in the conventional sense. A sales tax would be better.

>>441184

I'm not particularly interested in defending either the agricultural industry or the fast food industry in the US, since they are both are not the outcome of a free market and would not even be thinkable in their present state without state subsidies. But you happen to be blatantly wrong.

>food prices keep rising.
See attached.

>junk food is cheaper/quicker than real food.
This is a myth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html?_r=1&pagewante
d=all
>In fact it isn’t cheaper to eat highly processed food: a typical order for a family of four — for example, two Big Macs, a cheeseburger, six chicken McNuggets, two medium and two small fries, and two medium and two small sodas — costs, at the McDonald’s a hundred steps from where I write, about $28. (Judicious ordering of “Happy Meals” can reduce that to about $23 — and you get a few apple slices in addition to the fries!)
>You can serve a roasted chicken with vegetables along with a simple salad and milk for about $14, and feed four or even six people. If that’s too much money, substitute a meal of rice and canned beans with bacon, green peppers and onions; it’s easily enough for four people and costs about $9.

The real problem seems to be that there are more fast food stores than grocery stores in the US, which I would blame on corn syrup & transportation subsidies.

>>441152
It's a WIP, and it pertains to when somebody produces too much money, such that there wouldn't be incentive to continue doing so. Seems like maximum wage just holds back economic expansion.

>>441199

Indeed. Having a minimum wage guarantees a certain level of liquidity in the system. If you pay workers too little they can't afford to buy products and the entire economy suffers.

>>441200
>>441200

>Warren Buffet paid a lot more than the average Joe, and more than everyone in his office...

Nope.

As a percentage of his earning Buffett paid the least. Do you understand basic math?

>>441199
why though? People whose work is valued higher won't suddenly work on lower than minimum wage. People with a low skill set and no experience will have the opportunity to get some experience and an income, where the minimum wage currently bars them from doing so.

If your work is worth $2 an hour, and I'm paying you that, and a minimum wage comes along. I'm not going to suddenly give you a raise, I'll fire you. That's all minimum wage laws are: "fire everyone who cannot meet this standard" laws.
If you don't recognise this, then just put the minimum wage at $40,000 a year, and we can all live comfortably. Of course, you recognise that this would just mean all the poor people get sacked and screwed over.

>>441214
As a percentage of his earning Buffet paid the least. He earned considerably more than everyone else. Thus he paid a lot more than the average Joe, and my statement was correct.
Yes I understand basic math, but it seems you don't.

>>441195
I know they are legal alright, they even have a small buisness and they invited me when I complained, it is a birthday party but the girls are ugly and the music is half old and half shitty.

>calling the INS over an occasional party
I do hate when neighboors make noise but even so I would feel like such a dick. If they are legal this could bite me back in the ass since no one else is complaining.

Back on topic, that is my same opinion on the subject but I also believe some regulations here and there on insurance companies should be made for diseases caused by obesity or stress. This really can't be helped.

>>441216

Hey bro, I'm a libertarian too, but let me clear something up. There's actually little evidence that the minimum wage causes employers to sack their workers. See the work of Dube, Lester, and Reich. Sacking your employers is costly and damaging to morale, especially considering that most minimum wage employers are small retail and restaurant outlets.

The actual effect of the minimum wage is to increase the cost of hiring a low skilled worker relative to the benefits, compared to hiring a more high skilled worker (usually a member of a wealthy, middle class union), automating the job, or shipping it overseas. This is why the disparity between the black and white teenage unemployment rate was almost negligible before the first minimum wage hike in 1949. The minimum wage increases demand for the labour of the wealth and decreases demand for the labour of the poor and the young by making it relatively more expensive. The result? A high rate of unemployment.

>>441216
>Implying no minimum wage is better than the horrendously low minimum we have now
>Implying anyone could survive in the US on $2 an hour

Are you a fucking moron, or are you just not old enough to work yet? I'm hugely puzzled by how ridiculously asinine your posts are...

Abolishing the minimum wage devalues all jobs. If I'm currently employing staff at the minimum wage, and they require this wage to feed themselves or their family, and I suddenly am able to pay less than half, or a quarter of that, for the same work, what am I going to do? A minimum wage is needed. You're not living in a third world country, you should be proud of the rules and regulations this civilisation is based upon.

Move to nigger Africa if you want more "liberty" and the freedom to pay people as little as you want.

>>441221

Idiot.

The fact is Buffett pays nearly 20% less tax than the rest of us.This is, in Buffett's own words, "unfair". The rich are not pulling their weight relative to the middle classes. The middle classes' burden is heavier than the riches'.

>"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." Warren Buffett - New York Times, November 26, 2006.

>>441221
He's paying less relatively speaking than everyone else. And that's an important factor. Joe pays considerably more percentage of his take home than Buffet, even if Buffet contributes more overall, Joe is worse off.

>>441235

a) In the absence of a minimum wage, workers who are already earning the minimum wage would continue earning because they likely have a marginal productivity that justifies it.

b) Removing the minimum wage would go along way towards solving the unemployment problem among black youths and other disadvantaged groups. Of course it's true that they will be paid low wages, and this is regrettable and there are a lot of things we can do as a society about it. But this is irrelevant. The question is, does the minimum wage make the poor and the young better off or worse off? Since it deprives them of opportunities they would otherwise have chosen by pricing them out of a job, it clearly makes them worse off. I'd rather be working for little pay than have no job.

c) Ah, the "move to Africa" argument. Not a strawman at all. No siree.

>>441235
Of course abolishing the minimum wage doesn't change the value of any jobs. They're still worth exactly what they were worth before. If your job is worth $2 an hour, then I'm not going to make a loss on that work paying you at minimum wage. If your job is worth minimum wage, then I will want to keep you, because if I try to cut your income, you'll leave, and the value of your work is above the current wage.

And the US is something like the 6th freest economically. It would be better without minimum wage, but Africa is worse.

If the workers have more money they can buy more products. This is a positive feed back loop, it makes the economy grow.

Wages were relatively higher for the average worker in the 1950 and 1960, and this is reflected in economic growth figures for the time - and the growth wasn't based on credit like it was in the 1990s and 2000s.

>>441246
>Get proven wrong
>Call me an idiot anyway

So I was correct in my statement. Buffet already pays more than the vast majority of people. Perhaps only less than about 100 people. If he wants to pay even more still, he can. People are free to donate to charity, and if (by some retarded train of thought) he thinks the most worthy charity is the US government, he's perfectly able to pay more to them.

>>441042
Left Libertarian here, I believe in markets but I don't seem to believe in the criticism of the minimum wage for the following reason.

1. None of your equilibrium seems to worry about the happiness of the worker in competing systems. I mean in these competing systems the greatest disparity you will ever see in employment is about 20% but usually around 5% but the disparity in happiness of the workers in these systems is usually much higher.
2. If you read the Card and Krueger study on minimum wage you find that the effect of that equilibrium found only weak positive impacts of minimum wages on employment.

It is clear to me that the effect of employment is overstated by the public, and that full employment is a Utopian idea that should just not be worried about. To much time is spent by socialist and free marketers to trying to reach full employment, when it is clear it is Utopian.

>>441221

>Doesn't understand relative tax burden.

Buffett pays less taxes than the average Joe.

>>441266

This is a fallacy.

The minimum wage simply increases demand for some labour and lowers the demand for other kinds (read=low-skilled). It is a redistribution of wealth from the poor and youths to wealthy middle class unions. It doesn't create wealth.

The marginal increases in income that workers who continue to be employed with a minimum wage hike is more than offset by all the workers who don't get hired and remain unemployed.

>>441206
Wait people actually eat meals of like Big Macs and chicken nuggets at McDonald's because they think it's cheaper?

>>441216
Well you see, removing the minimum wage would only mean that companies would pay what they see fit so people in neccesity would be in a "Leave it or take it" position, so instead of preventing the system from abusing you, they can abuse of you harder.

What is it needed in that case is regulation and a clear contract. They are paying you minimum wage because the job you are supposed to accomplish isn't worth more than that and the skill set, as you say, isn't beyond what any highschool graduate would know. In exchange you get ceratin benefits and a clear idea of what your job is and what you are getting pay for so you know you aren't being exploited.

>>441259
>a) In the absence of a minimum wage, workers who are already earning the minimum wage would continue earning because they likely have a marginal productivity that justifies it.

No, I'll pay someone who's willing to do the same work for less. As will others. Frank loses his job, or leaves to try and find similar work, only to come to the grim realisation that he's currently worth a lot less than he was before.

>b) Removing the minimum wage would go along way towards solving the unemployment problem among black youths and other disadvantaged groups. Of course it's true that they will be paid low wages, and this is regrettable and there are a lot of things we can do as a society about it. But this is irrelevant. The question is, does the minimum wage make the poor and the young better off or worse off? Since it deprives them of opportunities they would otherwise have chosen by pricing them out of a job, it clearly makes them worse off. I'd rather be working for little pay than have no job.
So fire Frank, or have Frank leave, so I can hire 3-4 under privileged citizens to do the same work he was doing? Or one, and save the extra previous expenditures and put them towards my own pay packet? Paying someone less than what it costs to live is a ludicrous and pointless gesture. Not to mention Frank is now out of a job.

>c) Ah, the "move to Africa" argument. Not a strawman at all. No siree.
It's what every Libertarian describes...

>>441274
>2011
>taking Card and Krueger seriously

What a ridiculous study. They surveyed fast food managers in New Jersey over a period of six months. The teenagers who run fast food stores rarely have any discretion over hiring and firing decisions, and 6 months leaves out the possibility that disemployment effects from the minimum wage could have a time lag. And as Thomas Sowell wrote, surveying employers means *you can only survey the businesses that manage to survive*. A fewer amount of firms will be left with access to a larger pool of workers, and employment *per firm* will increase, giving the illusion that total employment has increased when it may not have. With this same method you could prove nobody died during WWII.

>>441271

You continue to make a fool of yourself, let me explain why:

Your argument is built on a fallacy, namely: ad hominem tu quoque (or, the "look who's talking" fallacy). Your claim, Buffett's call for higher taxes on the rich is invalid because Buffett hasn't already given money to Government voluntarily, is illogical. Whether Buffett has given money, or not, is irrelevant. If Buffets hasn't given money it does not mean his call for higher taxes is invalid.

>>441286
Yes and I know
>But you can prepare healthier food with less money lulz

But you aren't calculating the effort and time it takes, they basically have less that 30 minutes. They just want a quick bite.

>>441275
In 2006, the average Joe (from median federal tax) paid $8,800 in taxes. Warren Buffet paid $9,139,000 in taxes. It's a nonsense to say Buffet paid less. He paid less as a percentage of income, but he paid considerably more than almost everyone else in the country.

>>441283

It's not a fallacy, it's a verifiable economic phenomena. The problem with it is: it can cause inflationary pressure.

It's unfashionable, in economic circles, but it has a proven track record.

>>441298

God, please learn basic economics before you run your mouth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_product_of_labor

>So fire Frank
Why would "Frank" be fired? In the absence of the minimum wage, there would be an absolute increase in employment opportunities. More firms would get started up that would hire the disadvantaged and more money could be spent

>less than what it costs to live
I already debunked this ridiculous myth. See>>441145 and >>441206.

>It's what every Libertarian describes...
You don't know what you're talking about. A cabal of countries whose main export is AIDS that spent most of their independence being ruled by US and Soviet-sponsored crackpots that drove their economics into the ground has nothing to do with libertarianism.

>>441290
It would help if you could give arguments in a more coherent way. Removing the minimum wage would mean that companies would pay what they see fit? Yes, but they already do do that. The vast majority of people aren't on minimum wage, because their labour is worth more, and the companies are paying them as they see fit. What's so bad about this?
People in necessity would be in a "leave it or take it" position, yes but everyone is in that position as everyone pretty much needs a job, and the companies still compete for the labour, which is why most people's wages are above the minimum wage.

>>441311

> you aren't calculating the effort and time it takes, they basically have less that 30 minutes.
If you have evidence of this, please provide it. It would take a lot to convince me that people are willing to pay double the cost for a family meal in order to save 15 minutes.

>>441327

>verifiable economic phenomena
Yeah I'll bet. Is that why Sweden has a 25% youth unemployment rate?

>>441328
>God, please learn basic economics before you run your mouth.

Please learn basic business functions and human nature before you spout your nonsense.

If someone is willing to do Franks job for less than half of what I'm currently paying him, guess what's going to happen champ.

>In the absence of the minimum wage, there would be an absolute increase in employment opportunities. More firms would get started up that would hire the disadvantaged and more money could be spent
No there wouldn't. There'd be an increase of people being offered lower than their current value of work. They would either leave, or be fired, to make way for people who are willing to do the same amount of work for less pay.

I don't understand how this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp...

Nobody could rationally want more than a few million dollars in assets. Anything more than 10 mil is greed IMO

We could do a lot better if we went back to the days before we let the 0.5% elite rape the country (ie. Pre-Reagan)

>>441307
Nice fallacy. Would work if I was arguing anything like that, which I'm not. I'm simply saying that Buffet doesn't pay less taxes than other people, and I'm correct in that.

>>441303
Fast Food industry is the largest employment industry in the US, and usually managers are not teenagers.

Seems a bit strawman of you but okay.

>>441354

Everything you said is a ridiculous lie. Google "marginal product of labour" and learn basic economics. You honestly have no clue what you are talking about and you look like a complete idiot.

>human nature
Yeah, I'm sure a kid posting on 4chan knows all about human nature.

>>441320

If the average Joe paid $8000 of his $20,000 salary in tax and the rich guy paid $3,000,000 of his "20,000,000" salary, the rich guy is paying less of a proportion of his salay in taxes than the average Joe.

The rich guy pays less tax!

Buffett pays 17.4% of his total earnings in tax. Buffett pays less tax than the average Joe.

Do you understand?

>>441377
>Lose argument over the better part of an hour
>Resort to ad hominems

Never change.
I'm out of here, I'd like to say I hope I enlightened you somewhat on the workings and going ons of the real world, but I don't even think I scratched your surface. Next time?

>>441380
He pays a lower percentage, but this isn't less tax. He's paying considerably more in tax. Lrn2basic math

>>441350

Sweden is a nice place to live. Those kids are well taken care of. It's not like America where you have nothing if you haven't got a job. Those kids can go study, for free.

>>440768
>White male born into privilege detected.

STEP UP STEP BACK

>>441386

>I hope I enlightened you somewhat on the workings and going ons of the real world

Yeah, I'm sure you've been around the block once or twice in your Mercedes.

You don't understand how wages are determined in a market. You can dance around the issue all you want. Have fun being retarded.

>>441157
>implying the wealthy pay income tax

>>441404

They don't anymore.

>>441393

>Those kids are well taken care of.

By "well taken care of", you mean they are jobless leaches off the state and of their parents? Because you'd be right. Sweden's welfare state caused it to go nearly bankrupt in 1992, which is why recently they've elected a center-right party that is cutting the size of their national debt in half and privatizing some public services.

Ethnic Swede makes about the income of American blacks, and don't make 2/3 of the income of American whites.

"Sverige vs USA", p. 58.

>>441404
>>441412

Indeed, the wealthy have, largely, stopped paying their fair share of tax. The middle classes pay the majority.

>"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." Warren Buffett - New York Times, November 26, 2006.

>>441425
Stopped paying their fair share? The middle class pay the majority?
Bullshit. The top 1% pay 37% of the taxes. The top 10% pay 71% of the taxes. The rich are, by a long way, the biggest contributors to government revenue. Without them, there would be no money for the parks you envious socialist fa­ggots are so keen on occupying.

>>441422

>By "well taken care of", you mean they are jobless leaches off the state and of their parents?

If getting education and training is considered "leeching", then good luck to them. A highly educated work force leads to a sound economy.

And, Sweden is a great place to live.

>>441422

>Doesn't understand the figures...

The costs for a US citizen for paying for health care, education, etc... is far higher then the Swedes.

>>441449
No, Sweden is an incredibly fucking shitty place to live, it's government and social order are nice but the whether is so intolerably awful that none of that really matters.

>>441449

You have absolutely no clue what is going on in Sweden. Years of state subsidies to education has resulted in a massive number of people with absolutely worthless degrees. 1 out of 4 youths are unemployed.

>Sweden is a great place to live.
Yeah, I know you would like to believe that because it confirms your pathetic ideology, and you can keep asserting it all you want, but it isn't true. Sweden is a country that was made the wealthiest in the world thanks to its almost half-century of business friendly policies (when companies like Ikea and Volvo were established, companies it still relies on today.) The welfare state destroyed that wealth and everyone knows it. That's why the conservatives came into power.

>>441444

>doesn't understand who the rich are

The rich pay less tax than the middle classes. This is a fact. Their tax burden is far lower than the rest of the tax paying public.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/01/us-taxation-public-finance

>>441463

Your assertion is literally meaningless. Have you done a serious economic studies that comparies the real incomes of the two countries in a scientific manner?

As I said, Ethnic Swedes do not make 2/3 of the income of American whites.

And incidentally, their high life expectancy and low poverty rate far predate their welfare state. Swedes around the world are wealthy and live long. American Swedes make 55% more income than Swedes in Sweden. It has more to do with their culture of social co-operation, which the entitlement mentality of the welfare state destroyed.

http://www.libera.fi/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Libera_The-Swedish-model.pdf

>>441463
That's why you need to get rid of corporatism and licensing. There's a tendency for people to act like the only two systems in existence are "nationalised healthcare" which exists in mainland Europe and "privatised healthcare" which exists in the USA.
The best healthcare system I know of is Singapore's, which is private and deregulated, and has government cover for lethal and expensive conditions, price controls, and I think 30-70% cover for other things. It ranked 6th in the world by the WHO, and was poorer and spent far less than every country in the top 5.

If you can't justify raising it to $100+. you can't logically justify why it should be $10, 11. 12, etc.


Liberalism - Mindless reactionary solutions over sound reasonable policies.

>>441468

>Yeah, I know you would like to believe that because it confirms your pathetic ideology...

Nope, my lovely gf, Elin, is from Sweden, I just spent the summer there.

Learn about Sweden here:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm

>>441479
They pay less as a percentage, perhaps. But they pay far far more than the middle classes. The top 10% pay 71% of the tax, and the top 1% pays 37% of the tax. The rich pay the most tax out of everyone.

>>441484

Sweden is doing very well:

>GDP grew by 5.5% in 2010, beating expectations. It is expected to grow 4.2% in 2011. The Swedish economy bounced back more quickly than other similar economies due to strong public sector finances and a reliable export-driven economy. Main Swedish exports include machinery and transport equipment, chemical and rubber products, food, clothing, textiles and furniture, and wood products. Exports and investments are rapidly increasing, and the Swedish export market is expected to grow by 8% each year through 2013.

>Unemployment (May 2011)--7.9%.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm

>>441501
>argument from anecdote

You do know that unemployment statistics for Scandinavian countries vastly underestimate the amount of people without work by not counting anyone on a state unemployment benefit as "unemployed", do you?

>>441479
quantify "rich" and "middle class". The top 5% of American earners pay roughly 50% of the total income tax in this country.

>>441506

Go back and read what I said.

>recently they've elected a center-right party that is cutting the size of their national debt in half and privatizing some public services.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden#Crisis_of_the_1990s

They're doing well now because they've turned around.

I just thought I'd throw my 2 cents into this whole argument about the rich not deserving their money.

I come from a VERY well off family. We have millions of dollars worth of assets and investments etc. - all of these obtained by my father, who works in a high-level executive position in a company.
At this point in time, he hasn't slept in three days and is mostly relying on Mother, Red Bull and cigarettes to keep his eyes open. For the past few months he has been working eighteen hour days overseeing a very complex and convoluted business deal while at the same time having to deal with a class-action lawsuit from hell. On top of this my mother died recently (car accident).
He couldn't be present at the funeral because he had a conference.
I know all this not because he told me, but because I asked his secretary why I literally had not seen him for four weeks (and I live in his house).
Now, I'm not saying he's worth trillions of dollars, but I am saying he's worth a HELL of a lot more than your burger-flipping, park-shitting ass.

Prosperity is guarded, hard-earned and temporary among individuals.
Poverty is easy, inherited and forever in families.

In America, we're a meritocracy and expect poor people to get a job, no matter how low pay it is and teach them to save more, spend only at the dollar tree/99 cent store/Wal-mart sales.

>>441504

The point is, they should be paying far higher. Like the rest of us. They aren't pulling their weight.

>While most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks," wrote Buffett, whose personal fortune was estimated at $50bn (£30bn) by Forbes this year, making him the third richest person in the world behind Carlos Slim and Bill Gates."These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places...".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/15/warren-buffett-higher-taxes-super-rich

>>441507

hehe

>>Unemployment (May 2011)--7.9%.

Much lower than the US.

>>441526

Warren Buffet is full of shit. He pays less income tax than his secretary because, as primary shareholder, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, he makes most of his income in capital gains.

>>441530

Can you read?
>unemployment statistics for Scandinavian countries vastly underestimate the amount of people without work by not counting anyone on a state unemployment benefit as "unemployed"

Plus, I was talking about the *youth* unemployment rate, not the general one.

>>441526
They should be paying higher? They already pay millions, they already pay the majority of government funds, they already are the people keeping the country afloat, and you want them to pay MORE?

>>441516

Sweden is a Social Democratic country. Most American's would call them Commies.

Back to my point: A moment ago you attacked Sweden, now you're claiming them as one of your own...

Typical right wing retard.

>>440606
>No maximum wage
GODDAMNIT
There should be an individual wealth limit. You can EARN as much as you want, but you better damn well INVEST the majority of that as soon as you get it.

>>441545

>A moment ago you attacked Sweden, now you're claiming them as one of your own...

I "attacked" Sweden's parasitic welfare state which destroyed wealth that it took about a century to create, and which in recent years it has had the good sense to cut down to size. It's not my fault if you can't read.

>>441542

>They should be paying higher? They already pay millions, they already pay the majority of government funds, they already are the people keeping the country afloat, and you want them to pay MORE?

Horseshit!

The rich have cost us dearly. We gave just bailed them out to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars. They have systematically ruined the US economy, they have drained our wealth and cost us jobs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers

>>441550
You're a fascist.

>>441558

Sweden still has a very well developed welfare State, it's a much more civilized place to live than America, with its failed economy. Sweden has a good economy and a big welfare state, it's a success.

>>441561
Your statement is unsupported by the presentation of any reasoned argument, there fore you are stupid.

>>441566

You can keep repeating that all you want.

>>441558

So you like Sweden now? I thought you said it was a failure with 25% youth unemployment.

hehe, contradicting yourself, retard.

>>441517
Leisure is valuable.
The 99% is rich with time that they could only afford by income insurance paid by you father.
It's a shame they spend it so poorly.
It's a shame the parasites are biting the hand that feeds them.

>>441577

Do you like Sweden or not? You're confusing everyone.

>>441559
Then we shouldn't have bailed them out. That's entirely the fault of the government, not the rich.

>>441578

I said I like the fact that Sweden was cutting its welfare state.

It's 25% youth unemployment rate is still a disgrace and you're disgusting for defending it.

>retard
Does your mommy know your on the internet? It's late, better get to bed.

>>441586
I'm following him pretty easily. He didn't approve of Sweden's original policies, and thinks they caused the 1992 crisis, which Sweden is working its way out of due to moderate/right policies that have since been introduced.

>>441589

Nope.

It's the fault of the rich for fucking up in the first place.

>>441599
Of course not. In the free market there will always be people who fuck up. You don't socialise these losses.

>>441517

YOUR FAGGOT DAD IS A MOBBED UP ASSHAT WHOSE SOLE REASON FOR NOT SEEING YOU OR GOING TO HIS WIFE'S FUNERAL IS THAT HE IS GETTING HEAD FROM A 10 YEAR OLD BOY HE BOUGHT FROM A WHITE SLAVER.

>>441559
>one percent wealth destroyers
>mfw the "one percent" includes any household worth more than $250k/year
>confirmed for OWS bullshit piece.

>>441598

Sweden's welfare system has remained, it's still one of the best in the world.

Sweden rescued themselves from the early '90s crisis by nationalizing their banks and financial sector. This isn't very right wing, is it?

>>441380
we need to tax lower income poeple less so they can live a decent life
if we tax lower income people more, they get less money which widens the gap between poor + rich. which ive been told isnt good
im pretty sure that even if someone made 20 million a year, and about 60% of it is gone.. 8 million$ a year is a damn good salary for a year.
they complain that their taxes are too high. yeah, it should be that way because you can actually take that big of a hit, and still have more than enough money to live for 160 years your success is going to benefit everyone, not just you, you are being greedy.. 3 million$ a life time is all most people need to live about 80 years.. why do you need to spend 8 million a year?

>>441603

When the rich demand it we have no choice.

>>441618
sure we do. If Bill Gates asked me for 10 bucks I wouldn't give him shit.

>>441609

>welfare system has remained
Is that why they now have private social security and healthcare options and a school voucher system now? I wasn't saying they were a libertarian paradise, but they are starting to see the errors of their ways. Poll the average Swede now, and he's much more hesitant about free benefits from the nanny state.

>Sweden rescued themselves from the early '90s crisis by nationalizing their banks

I know they nationalized their banks. Of course, this immediately led to political chaos, where interest rates were raised by 500%. What *actually* saved them was the reduction of their national debt in half.

>>441559
.banks != all business

>>441534
so you're saying that because his job is investing he should pay less taxes then other people with equal income? should we start different tax rates for all jobs?

ITT: OWS sympathizers learn something and don't like it

>>441626
>>441626

>What *actually* saved them was the reduction of their national debt in half.

The "chaos" preceded the nationalization.

After nationalization of the banks, the economy stabilized (the crisis was caused by unregulated banks, sound familiar?). The Swedish banks remain in State control. If the state control of Sweden's banks was so damaging, why haven't they been reprivatized?

You know, there was not a serious banking crisis in Sweden in 2007/08, because the banks were still nationalized.

THE MODERN SYMPTOM OF SOCIOPATHOLOGY IS HOARDING WEALTH WITH DISREGARD FOR THE REST OF THE SPECIES.

KINGS OR CEOs: ALL ARE GREEDY BULLIES WHO'S SELFISHNESS WILL DISINTEGRATE CIVILIZATION.

WE WILL KILL AND RAPE YOU AND SHIT IN YOUR CORPSE'S MOUTHS.

THE 99%

>>441685
>THE MODERN SYMPTOM OF SOCIOPATHOLOGY IS HOARDING WEALTH WITH DISREGARD FOR THE REST OF THE SPECIES.
This is essentially true. The hyper wealthy are investing those funds into buying 'things' for themselves, so the wealth never actually leaves them.

>>441721

Sweden's banks are still very much under state control.

>>441666

Oh, what do you know, I just looked it up and it turns out Swedish banks are not nationalized. Hate to burst your bubble.

http://www.piie.com/realtime/?p=504

>Sweden did not nationalize its banks. [...] In Sweden, a temporary emergency bank authority was set up on the model of the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. It had outside, mainly foreign, consultants to scrutinize all bank debts and establish objectively which were nonperforming. The banks were forced to write off their bad debts and transfer them to bad banks.
>The bad banks sold off their assets at a leisurely pace over several years to maximize their value, avoiding excessive depreciation of assets through fire sales.

So instead of privatizing profits and socializing costs, which is what nationalization always results in, it turns out all Sweden did was liquidate bad assets, exactly what Obama-fanatics in the US said we shouldn't do.

And Sweden didn't have a banking crisis because they didn't have a real estate bubble caused by decades of affirmative action in lending.

>>441729

So are American banks. What's your point?

>>441730

Banks were chasing profits, that's why there was a housing bubble. They were trading the loans for lots of money, they didn't care if the loans were dodgy because they had private insurance, with companies like AIG.

>>441743

>Banks were chasing profits, that's why there was a housing bubble.
This is an odd explanation. If profit-seeking is the cause of depressions, then why aren't we in a depression all the time?

>they didn't care if the loans were dodgy because they had private insurance
Then why didn't private insurance care if the loans were dodgy? After all, an insurance company is just as profit-seeking as any other.

You really don't know anything about what happened. We had a crisis because of decades of subsidization of risk-taking by agencies like the Fed, Fannie and Freddie, the CRA, the FHA, the DHUD, the government-created ratings cartel, etc. encouraged banks to buy up toxic assets all in the name of increasing home ownership.

>>441730

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Swedish Government directly took over 25% of banking in Sweden. They tightly contril the rest with Government officials on the boards of the banking companies.

>A real estate boom ended in a bust. The government took over nearly a quarter of banking assets at a cost of about 4% of the nation's GDP.

http://www.oecd.org/country/0,3731,en_33873108_33873822_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

Banks also sold derivatives fraudulently rated AAA to other banks that were severely over leveraged, some @ 30:1.

Greed caused the crash. There's a reason it's labeled a deadly sin. Until we mitigate the genetically deformed greedy minority incapable of empathy, the cycle will repeat itself infinitely, wreaking destruction for the cooperative majority.

>>441772

>then why aren't we in a depression all the time?

Because most of the time people aren't chasing profits that risk destroying their business. This is exactly what the banks were doing, they were acting irrationally. And, no the banks weren#t protected by Government, there was no "moral hazard". Lehman Brother is evidence of this. The banks had private insurance with companies like AIG

>>441772
>If profit-seeking is the cause of depressions, then why aren't we in a depression all the time?
Because there is a difference between seeking profits, and forging profits.
The banks forged profits by giving away billions of dollars in loans to those they knew wouldn't be able to pay it back, but claimed it to be a net gain beause of the increased revenue from the amount of debt money was now flowing their way, but with all the forclosures of homes the debts became defunct and the banks lost all the potential wealth, kicking them in the nuts like a linebacker on a tackling spree.

>>441772
Because the way it works is seeking profits builds up a bubble, for several years everything works great as the bubble builds, then the bubble collapses and a depression begins, then profit seeking is unable to build up a dangerous bubble until the economy recovers, which leads to a cycle of bubbles and busts that repeats itself.

>>441778
Greed is the one dependable good. When I buy a loaf of bread from the baker, I don't know it's going to be good because he likes me (he might hate me). I don't know it's going to be good because he's passionate (he might have lost interest long ago). I know it's going to be good because he will want me to come back and spend more money.

If government didn't insure transactions, then speculation would be incredibly beneficial to society.

>>441774
>The government took over nearly a quarter of banking assets

Note that this doesn't contradict anything I said. According to my source, Sweden undertook a temporary national program to encourage banks to sell bad debt. This is a far more "capitalistic" solution than the one the US took. Only two banks were actually "nationalized".

>>441778
It's funny how people conveniently leave out facts that contradict their narrative. The government only recognizes 3 ratings agencies, and if you want to enter the industry your ratings can't contradict theirs.

>>441778
> incapable of empathy
You mean incapable of SYMPATHY bro.
Empathy is the ability to understand the non-verbal and emotional communications of others, to allow us to 'sense' what others are feeling/thinking at the time. A lack of Empathy results in social retardation, as seen in Autistics.
Sympathy is the natural process of sharing an experience via imaginative processes, so we feel something through empathy, and then simulate our own experience of it using that signal as a base, after which the person then can sympathise with others having 'felt what they are going through.
A lack of sympathy results in sociopathy, because not being able to sympathise means you have no inherent reason to care about others since you have no understanding of their suffering; it's as alien to you as the moon.

>>441809

Greed is evil.

Every civilization condemns it.

Rationalize it all you want, but you and your deformed offspring are the reason the world can't live in peace.

>>441829

empathy |ˈempəθē|
noun
the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

>>441799
>>441793
>>441791

All explain absolutely nothing. If banks just want to make profit by making irrational investments, then under normal conditions they will simply go bankrupt. They couldn't have done what they did on their own.

>And, no the banks werent protected by Government, there was no "moral hazard".
Are you seriously saying there is no moral hazard in our financial system?

>Lehman Brother is evidence of this. The banks had private insurance with companies like AIG
AIG was involved in the business of insuring MBS's that the government was giving AAA ratings and created a market for through Fannie and Freddie. Plus AIG was receiving government funds even before the bailout.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/business/07goldman.html?sq=AIG&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=2&a
mp;pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1322391754-DSUtviwNDDN9lmx6pUTTnA

>>441829

sociopath |ˈsōsēōˌpaθ|
noun
a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

conscience |ˈkän ch əns|
noun
an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior

>>441848
Sympathy is a social affinity in which one person stands with another person, closely understanding his or her feelings. Also known as empathic concern, it is the feeling of compassion or concern for another, the wish to see them better off or happier. Although empathy and sympathy are often used interchangeably, a subtle variation in ordinary usage can be detected. To empathize is to respond to another's perceived emotional state by experiencing feelings of a similar sort.[1] Sympathy not only includes empathizing, but also entails having a positive regard or a non-fleeting concern for the other person.

It still does not correct me

>>441839
>>441839
How is greed evil? I've shown why greed is what I depend on for the knowledge that most my purchases will be of high quality, and I will be disappointed with very few. The disgusting levels of greed from people like Bill Gates is why we have high quality computers at such low prices. Greed is probably the biggest motivating force for good in the world, because in order to make the most money, you have to serve mankind as much as possible.

>>441809
There's a difference between rational self-interest and greed.

A baker selling you bread is not an act of greed; he is going to take that money you gave him to further his business, support his family, support himself, etc.

Greed is wanting money for the sake of having money. Greed is treating money like a drug and not a tool.

>>441864
> then under normal conditions they will simply go bankrupt. They couldn't have done what they did on their own.
That is correct. But they Chose to do it anyway, under some assumption that it would all turn out right, and it did in the end! They got their bailout, and their money, athough they don't seem to have planned for the post-effect mess.
Normally, they would have bankrupted. Normally.

>>440606
Regulate the regulator is a fucking retard:

92' crisis is caused because a housing bubble and state lowered taxes when a right party was in power.

In comes the social democratic party and starts a solid economic policy and cleans house. Göran Persson with his party leads for 3 terms (12 years)

The country now have a solid surplus and the right wing party just keeps his economical doctrine whilst... lowering taxes


Regulate the regulator... tripfags

>>441875

greed |grēd|
noun
intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.

If you can't understand why greed is evil, you are of no value to the human race.

Please kill yourself.

>>441893
That's because that fellow cannot into the difference between greed and basic selfishness.
Greed is an overload of selfishness, and like any extreme, is bad.
Basic selfishness is good. Not enough, and you die, too much, and you kill other people.

>>441883
I heard the cheap money policies of the Fed and the subsidization of risk by various government agencies, the "too-big-to-fail" doctrine, the government-created cartel in ratings agencies, etc. had nothing to do with any of that. No siree, the free market is 100% to blame for everything and government has absolutely no responsibiliy.

>>440606

So lowering taxes causes depressions? Is that why Roosevelt pushed the marginal tax rate up to 60% just as the Great Depression was getting underway?

>tripfag
Somebody's buttmad.

> why is there no maximum lifespan?
> why is there no maximum productivity?
> why is there no maximum number of kids?
> why is there no maximum amount of stocks you can buy?
> why is there no maximum bank balance?

>>441911
>>441911
Är du svensk har du någonsin varit i Sverige undrar jag?

>>441911
yeah, but instead of an all around tax on people like
currently the tax rate is lets say 1/4 of poor peoples income so they get 45000$ a year but the rich people get even at 30% of their profits gone. lets say they make 3 million a year.. 30% of that gone is well enough on living a long ass time basically. it costs about 3 million for a lifetime of living an ok life 2 million dollars isnt enough for you to live off of?
besides, all thats taxed from the rich, is actually going to help the rich , and poor.
them wanting more than whats more than luxury for a lifetime, they are being greedy.. and their obsession with money means that everyone has to pay, because they have all that money instead of everyone, to use for everyone

>>441966 cont.... raising taxes for the rich and less on the poorer means that, your taxes go to building parks, and police stations, and fire stations. meaning that hey.. youre hiring people to build shit for everyone. meaning youre giving it back to the poor-er people.. through paying them to build it

>>441274
>Left Libertarian here
You abide voluntary approaches and social propaganda, to guard equality of result?
>I believe in markets
That doesn't mean that you believe in free markets, plus it doesn't say much, as markets must exist in any "system" thus far, including one contaning pure communism.
>1. None of your equilibrium seems to worry about the happiness of the worker in competing systems. I mean in these competing systems the greatest disparity you will ever see in employment is about 20% but usually around 5% but the disparity in happiness of the workers in these systems is usually much higher.
I beg your pardon. Uh, disparity in happiness? Also, the equilibrium isn't the only aspect about which to worry.
>2. If you read the Card and Krueger study on minimum wage you find that the effect of that equilibrium found only weak positive impacts of minimum wages on employment.
I'm doubt it accounts for sure happinesses rather than hypothetical happinesses.
>It is clear to me that the effect of employment is overstated by the public, and that full employment is a Utopian idea that should just not be worried about. To much time is spent by socialist and free marketers to trying to reach full employment, when it is clear it is Utopian.
You do realize that unemployment is an euphemism for social stratification? We know that poor people, in order to subsist, are going to need public, social welfare, whether they're employed or unemployed. It'd be my argument that they be eligible for at least some form of work, rather than live entirely off of private charity and (*puke*) public entitlements, along with the accompanying shame and sloth. Also, free marketers aren't concerned with achieving "full employment," as an indifference is the matter of fact.

>>441926
Some jerks just want everything in human existence to be limited or regulated. They want everything sort of a totalitarian democracy which is not an oxymoron but simply mass hysteria.

>>441042
>increase production
as a phone worker I easily made the company more than 4x what I was paid. The problem wasn't that i wasn't working hard enough, it was that there's no way to make the company pay people what they're worth.
Good post, but still misses the point.