Re: Trump won and all I can think about is ^adam^

[Yamon]

Islam is the national religion of Bangladesh. They neighbor with the Islamic State.

Huh?  Does "the Islamic State" here mean Pakistan or does it mean nothing at all?

Global capitalism is not capitalism.

Where do you think your clothes are made?  Check the tag.  If all our biggest garment and fashion companies weren't having their goods produced by slave labor in unsafe facilities, our prices would go up and ownership's profits would go down.  Therefore, they'll see to it that they always have a source of cheap labor... they'll hold back labor movements in Bangladesh and if the workers there were to get too empowered, they'd pick up the factories and go somewhere else. That is "economic freedom."

Yes. that's why deregulating is important to bring our jobs back. If doing business in another country is better, why not do it? It's pretty simple logic.

How is deregulating going to bring jobs back??  We gonna axe the minimum wage so we can be paid $60/month like the Bangladeshi people?

the minimum wage law is a huge example of regulation hurting the economy. It's the single biggest contributor to unemployment on the books.

[Certified MENSA Genius Brain (smart)]

Thought experiment: What if it's not?  What if profit-seeking enterprises are not going to employ large numbers of redundant people regardless of wages, because why would they?  And if self check-out robot scabs save them money over even a low-paid cashier, what efficiently-run business won't lay off cashiers?

[Yamon]

Thought experiment: What if it's not?  What if profit-seeking enterprises are not going to employ large numbers of redundant people regardless of wages, because why would they?  And if self check-out robot scabs save them money over even a low-paid cashier, what efficiently-run business won't lay off cashiers?

Businesses are making robots to replace workers, because of the minimum wage law. Their shitty government education doesn't give them the knowledge or experience to justify them making the minimum wage, so they can't work. And business are getting tired of paying unfair wages to people, so they are replacing them. But it's not regardless of wages, it's because of wages. Making 50 cents under what's required by law would literally give jobs back to people.

[Certified MENSA Genius Brain (smart)]

there's actually no evidence that minimum wage increases cause unemployment.  that is a faith-based argument and economists are basically astrologists

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

http://www.epi.org/minimum-wage-statement/

There is a huge literature on the impact of minimum wages on employment. Many studies show very little effect, but there is a substantial minority of studies that show the opposite. Though the general weight of evidence is on the side of minimum wage increases not being so bad, it isn't an overwhelming consensus.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-05-27/finally-an-answer-to-the-old-minimum-wage-question

[Yamon]

i mean. I don't know what to say to those publications. I generally don't trust bloomberg. And the government takes whatever economists will go along with their legislation, and then implement. And every school listed is a liberal school. Obama won the Nobel peace prize by going to war. So I can't really provide any insight on this. Very hard to fact check, but based on what I know, this seems like more crap. Boehner and mccdonnel, are lefists. And any economic plan that reid and peoloski are working on, I don't want any part of it. Do we need to look at obama's 8 year results again?

But your sources on information do shed light on a lot of things that i've been wondering about for years now.

The hoover institution has addressed this issue of polar opposite opinion on what should be fact based economics.

[I hate naggers]

general discussion? gtfo nerds

trump 2016 end of thread

[foonat]

The good ol' right wing "I don't trust any of that" when presented with scientific evidence that contradicts what they believe to be true. Given that you are an inbred ape it isn't surprising that you went that route.

For blid (assuming you aren't just trying to educate the ape and are interested in the topic): I've talked to some economists about this and from what I've gathered they seem to mostly agree that a minimum wage increase is a net benefit for the economy. There are disagreements over what that amount should be ($10? $12? $15? $20?), as they all say that unemployment will increase to accompany minimum wage increases (at least in the short term). So, the question is where the increased spending power that minimum wage workers get (and others around that wage range that will also likely see an increase in wages) outweighs the resulting unemployment. You do make a good point though that economists make tons of assumptions in their models. I am no economist, so I don't fully understand many of the theoretical and methodological assumptions that are built in to the models.

[Yamon]

The good ol' right wing "I don't trust any of that" when presented with scientific evidence that contradicts what they believe to be true. Given that you are an inbred ape it isn't surprising that you went that route.

For blid (assuming you aren't just trying to educate the ape and are interested in the topic): I've talked to some economists about this and from what I've gathered they seem to mostly agree that a minimum wage increase is a net benefit for the economy. There are disagreements over what that amount should be ($10? $12? $15? $20?), as they all say that unemployment will increase to accompany minimum wage increases (at least in the short term). So, the question is where the increased spending power that minimum wage workers get (and others around that wage range that will also likely see an increase in wages) outweighs the resulting unemployment. You do make a good point though that economists make tons of assumptions in their models. I am no economist, so I don't fully understand many of the theoretical and methodological assumptions that are built in to the models.

bloomberg is scientific evidence? a crony capitalist congress is scientific evidence? Articles that fit my narrative are scientific evidence. - foonat

[foonat]

Obviously those articles themselves aren't scientific research articles, but they're reporting on what economists have found in their research (which constitutes the scientific evidence). Here you go, you complete fucking moron:

"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

"There is a huge literature on the impact of minimum wages on employment. Many studies show very little effect, but there is a substantial minority of studies that show the opposite. Though the general weight of evidence is on the side of minimum wage increases not being so bad, it isn't an overwhelming consensus. "

" Several meta-analyses have found that most of these studies find that minimum wages don’t have much of an effect on employment. "

Yamon The Inbred knows better though.

[Yamon]

Obviously those articles themselves aren't scientific research articles, but they're reporting on what economists have found in their research (which constitutes the scientific evidence). Here you go, you complete fucking moron:

"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

"There is a huge literature on the impact of minimum wages on employment. Many studies show very little effect, but there is a substantial minority of studies that show the opposite. Though the general weight of evidence is on the side of minimum wage increases not being so bad, it isn't an overwhelming consensus. "

" Several meta-analyses have found that most of these studies find that minimum wages don’t have much of an effect on employment. "

Yamon The Inbred knows better though.

okay, i can just as easily find tons of shit saying the contrary, will it be scientific documented evidence when you disagree with it?

! No longer available

[CumSavorer4385]

thomas sowell lol

[CumSavorer4385]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-investigation.html

President-elect Donald J. Trump repeatedly called Hillary Clinton “Crooked Hillary,” and many of his fans chanted over and over again at his campaign rallies: “Lock her up!”

But on Tuesday, Mr. Trump essentially said never mind, signaling that he has no intention of directing investigations into his former rival’s use of a private email server or the financial operations at the Clinton family’s global foundation.

“I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,’’ Mr. Trump said during a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times. “She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways, and I am not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious.”


lmfaaaaooo trump supporters already getting cucked

[shesycompany]

http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iTVKK6C4YhsM/v1/-1x-1.jpg already pasted this once... doesnt even need writing lol

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

i didn't hear anything about taxes in that video. But cutting taxes on the wealthy wouldn't hurt anything either if that was the case. As long as there is tax cuts in the middle and lower taxes on the wealthy are pretty irrelevant. This illusion of "greed" of the top 1-10% is just a narrative that is almost 100 years old to incite anger and division among common sense regulation so people don't know how anything works. And believe me, it's beyond effective. Hilary almost won.

 so.. people were so angry at the "illusion" of the greedy wealthy that their solution was to vote for a corporate tool who would continue helping keep the wealth concentrated in the 0.1%?

it's also true that the top 1-0.1% are the only ones with the power to create jobs and generate revenue.

that's because the capitalist class control the means of production. it's not a reason to boot lick them. they don't create jobs out benevolence, they do it to extract profits from the working class. they literally use labourers as a commodity to vastly enrich themselves while we get crumbs.

it's also true that the top 1-0.1% are the only ones with the power to create jobs and generate revenue.

lets take a look at the alternative



these look like immigrants trying to flee their country because a capitalist country is bombing them again.

Lets take a look at imperial socialism. Soviet Russia.

you think pointing at the period where Russia was the strongest in its entire history is proof of socialism failing? damn i wonder what it would have to do for it to succeed in your eyes.

[tora is a simp bitch for billionaires]

Global capitalism is not capitalism. You think a country with sharia law can implement freedom correctly? It's a sideways argument. Just like china took steps in the right direction, they're still way behind the US. and hopefully Bangladesh will see their days of prosperity as they head in the right direction.

lmao. capitalism fails without globalism, that's its main engine. whether a country has sharia law or not doesn't mean anything regarding its economic system.