?!? Net profit is what isn't spent on "expenses". I have $80M more profit than my competitor to reinvest.
You haven't realised what your argument is actually based on. Re-read my post again and actually respond to its content
Easier said than done; even Dr. Paul doesn't present a resolution to end the drug war as often as he presents one to abolish a "profit center" known as the Fed.
I understood what you said. What you describe doesn't exist in the business I'm in. When I sell 100 million of something with the same quality and performances, less than penny shifts from my competitor to me. $80M goes a long way to stealing market share. As far as "bucking the trend costing me profits", not in the computer / consumer industry. Profits are what is left over after you and your competitor kick each others teeth in. If they want to pay their executives an order of magnitude more than I do - sorry Charlie.
Perhaps for your argument, but its everything for mine. The reason why labour economics is arguably the most vibrant of the sub-disciplines of economics is how it has had to adapt to explain empirical phenomena. Underpayment is the classic example
Are you assuming the S&P caliber CEO is not earning their ratio as a form of commanding an efficiency wage? Why are you assuming you could have similar gains, without that form of "vetting"; from a hypothetical HR point of view and perspective?
What objection can there be to a public policy choice that could solve the need for more public assistance, in a market friendly manner that could be as easy to administer as our current minimum wage laws are now? Do we really need the expense of anything more complicated than that, for non means tested unemployment compensation that bears true witness to the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will?
What is your opinion of the concept of supply side economics supplying better governance at lower prices?
Supply side economics cannot explain economic result; its akin to taking neoclassical microeconomics and ignoring all realistic assumptions. Its ultimate aim is to coerce a result that is detrimental to the majority.
I agree with you that macro economics and micro economics are dissimilar. However, in my opinion, macro economics could be employed in the US, as public sector means of production that are market friendly and therefore compatible with private sector markets; and, thereby, supply us with potentially better governance, at potentially lower prices.
Anyone who believes in a free economy is against both social and corporate welfare. Especially since there is no authority in the Constitution to engage in either.
I haven't made any such statement. I've simply used an example of unrealistic microeconomic theory to demonstrate the nature of supply side economics. Both originate from a naive understanding of economic relations
I agree to disagree. Providing for the general welfare can be restated as providing for the general prosperity since that must be the case, as part of the general welfare of the United States.
Given microeconomic foundations of macroeconomics, you haven't got an argument. You're still coming out with concepts quite randomly
It is simply my contention that the public sector should use macro economics over micro economics, whenever possible, to potentially provide better governance at lower prices.
And this is complete nonsense! One uses economics; one realises that macroeconomic outcome is the result of microeconomic behaviour etc etc etc.
How does your point of view account for our wars on abstractions and the Space Race? In my opinion, that form of central planning is better for macroeconomics than microeconomics such as micromanaging our tax codes but not pander to constituents in the process.
Except the term "general welfare" is followed by a list of responsibilities for the Federal government, followed by the statement, anything not specifically listed, belongs to the States.
Am I to understand you suggest everyone is given a living wage from the government, and those that choose to work pay the taxes to support that?
