If you can’t understand the minimum wage, you should be denied political power and treated like a cute but dangerous child when it comes to economic matters.
Whether a person can understanding the minimum wage should be a fundamental test. Can they distinguish between short term and long term? Can they distinguish between how the world is and how they want it to be?
The explanations by Hazlitt, Friedman and many others are so crystal clear.
Surprise: Bay Area Restaurants Disappear After Minimum Wage Hike
How does the left countenance their hypocrisy???
Originally, the point of the left was fighting poverty. The argument went that Communism produced more wealth because it removed the inefficiency (greed) of those who owned the means of production. Communism was superior because it produced MORE WEALTH. Nobel prize winning economist Paul Samuelson told everyone this was inevitable.
All those scores of millions of people were murdered in the name of helping the poor. (Paul Samuelson, that degenerate monster, posited the question of whether communist wealth did not make its oppression worth it.)
Then, in the parts of the world where people had defended themselves against the communists and kept the snarling horde at bay, CAPITALISM created never-before-seen wealth. Capitalism ended poverty.
Capitalism delivered the promise of early communism’s most starry-eyed proselytizers.
As I like to say: The Messiah of the left has arrived, but the left has no need for a messiah that actually shows up.
The left abandoned their fight against poverty and forgot that it ever existed. They’ve anointed a new messiah, one that is guaranteed to never arrive and ruin their bloodlust for destroying social orders: equality.
The parable begins with a simplifying assumption. This is that it takes exactly two workers to make a vase: one to blow it from molten glass and another to pack it for delivery. Now suppose that two workers, A1 and A2, are highly skilled—if they are assigned to either task they are guaranteed not to break the vase. Suppose two other workers, B1 and B2, are less skilled—specifically, for either task each has a 50% probability of breaking the vase.
Now suppose you are worker A1. If you team up with A2, you produce a vase every attempt. However, if you team up with B1 or B2, then only 50% of your attempts will produce a vase. Thus, your productivity is higher when you team up with A2 than with one of the B workers. Something similar happens with the B workers. They are more productive when they are paired with an A worker than with a fellow B worker.
So far, everything I’ve said is probably pretty intuitive. But here’s what’s not so intuitive. Suppose you’re the manager of the vase company and you want to produce as many vases as possible. Are you better off by (i) pairing A1 with A2 and B1 with B2, or (ii) pairing A1 with one of the B workers and A2 with the other B worker?
If you do the math, it’s clear that the first strategy works best. Here, the team with two A workers produces a vase with 100% probability, and the team with the two B workers produces a vase with 25% probability. Thus, in expectation, the company produces 1.25 vases per time period. With the second strategy, both teams produce a vase with 50% probability. Thus, in expectation, the company produces only one vase per time period.
The example illustrates how workers’ productivity is often interdependent—specifically, how your own productivity increases when your co-workers are skilled.
Attempt at refutation here:
I’ve been puzzled by how the left, even faced with a perceived anti-christ as president, never considers that states’ rights, and limited government are virtues. Why don’t they get this?
I think I’ve figured it out. Their survival strategy is parasitism. They can’t allow their potential hosts to flee place themselves out of reach or flee to other jurisdictions.
They correctly sense that a gigantic centralized apparatus is the enabler of their parasitism. So there’s no “live and let live” for the left.
They need BOTH a powerful centralized government AND control. They are deaf and blind to the fairly obvious risk of the powerful apparatus they build falling into the hands of someone they despise.
The arguments are so obvious, the evidence is so overwhelming. The leftist program so disastrous to the very people in whose name it is promoted. What do leftists think when they hear an interview like this? I can’t imagine. I really can’t.
Today I was invited to a US college class to speak about the view on the family in Sweden. I started by talking about Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, the architects behind the Swedish welfare state, free schools, free healthcare and their wonderful underlying social fascist ideals. Spiced it up with a few quotes from their famous book, such as
“The task of prophylactic social policy is to create a better human material and improve the quality of the population stock.”
“Most important is obviously the radical cleansing out of individuals highly unfit for life, which can be achieved by sterilization.”
“Schools must be used as propaganda tools: not only to create more knowledgeable and responsible parents in the next generation, which is important in itself, but also to let children raise up their own parents, a method which has proven effective.”
When I finally explained that home schooling was a criminal offence which can be rewarded with prison time and forced adoption of the children, they looked at me in horror.
I was pleased to see them so quickly cured of their socialist collectivist illusions of the happy welfare state. The students even asked me to come back and spend more time with them.
Now, I must apologize because I’ve been sharing that the illegitimacy rate in the black community was 72 percent. I was wrong. It’s now 75 percent.
As Dr. Walter E. Williams writes for CNSnews.com, “Hustlers and people with little understanding want us to believe that today’s black problems are the continuing result of a legacy of slavery, poverty and racial discrimination. The fact is that most of the social pathology seen in poor black neighborhoods is entirely new in black history. Let’s look at some of it. Today the overwhelming majority of black children are raised in single female-headed families. As early as the 1880s, three-quarters of black families were two-parent. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black families were two-parent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children had the same mother and father.”
“Today’s black illegitimacy rate of nearly 75 percent is also entirely new. In 1940, black illegitimacy stood at 14 percent. It had risen to 25 percent by 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action” and was widely condemned as a racist. By 1980, the black illegitimacy rate had more than doubled, to 56 percent, and it has been growing since. Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.”
“Much of today’s pathology seen among many blacks is an outgrowth of the welfare state that has made self-destructive behavior less costly for the individual. Having children without the benefit of marriage is less burdensome if the mother receives housing subsidies, welfare payments and food stamps. Plus, the social stigma associated with unwed motherhood has vanished. Female-headed households, whether black or white, are a ticket for dependency and all of its associated problems. Ignored in all discussions is the fact that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994.”
Those are facts and there is only one group that MUST be held responsible for this degradation and decimation of the black family — white liberal progressive socialists. It was fifty years ago when President Lyndon Johnson came up with the brilliant idea of the government giving a check to a woman having a child out of wedlock. But worse, the checks would continue to come as long as no man was to be found in the home.
Can we sort ideologies between those justifying the strong (“right wing” / imposing karma / marketplace for competition), and those justifying the weak (“left wing” / demand sharing / not leaving anyone behind).
Why is it that the ideologies that justify the weak always attempt to deny and destroy heritage?
From economic Marxism to cultural Marxism to Pan-Africanism. What is it about appealing to the weak that requires the left to destroy everyone’s heritage?
friend of mine:
—“Execution of Americo-Liberians (descendants of freed American Slaves) who imposed tyrany and slavery on the autochonous groups in Liberia.
Pan-africanists have never learned from this brutal lesson. You may read the histories of modern west Africa and nevrr learn why the seria leonians and Liberians fought brutal civil wars.”—
WSJ: “welfare is abused by Muslims across Europe — some 80% of Muslim immigrants to Europe are on the dole, and more than half are “economically inactive.” Muslims claim disability more than any other group. In the EU capital of Belgium, as well as neighboring Netherlands, Muslims are roughly 5% of the population yet consume 40% to 60% of the welfare budget. Belgium spends more on unemployment benefits than any other country outside Denmark. European society isn’t oppressing Muslim immigrants. Far from it. It’s coddling them.”