Your subscription to the republican doctrine is duly noted. However, I would like to ask; where there is any specific enumeration of a delegated power to have any wars on abstractions instead of lawful sovereign States, when not engaging in letters of marque and reprisal?
It could depend on what you mean by everyone. Are you claiming S&P CEOs would rather quit their day jobs and their CEO wage ratios to go on unemployment compensation as a form of minimum wage that simply pays them to stay out of official poverty? If not, why such a lack of faith in Capitalism?
One wouldn't give examples, one would refer to empirical evidence (e.g. To test the orthodox analysis into dynamic monopsony run a stochastic frontier)
Like maybe the Barbary Corsairs? You just to got to the next line up. "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"
Avoiding tabloidism is everything. Given its a test of the 'market wage', referring to regression analysis based on random sampling is basic sense
Lets say the government gives every individual over the age of twelve a minimum income of $20K a year, tax free. How much would taxes have to go up to pay for this? The CEO of S&P may make a boatload of money today, but after the taxes required to fund this? As fewer people work taxes go up, incentivising more to quit. An economic death spiral... How many people would continue working?
Avoiding tabloidism, or avoiding any details that would demonstrate if you really have a grasp on economics?
Anyone with a grasp of economics would know that, to assess underpayment, reference must be made to the market wage. You may want to avoid sensible reference to the empirical approach, but I don't see any point in it
It seems, to me, that letters of marque and reprisal were sufficient, since, from my understanding, only lawful nations may commit offenses against the law of nations.
Why such a lack of faith in Capitalism in favor of that form of socialism or Communism? I only claim that a minimum wage would be a form of market based metric when compared to a prevailing, market based wage for any participant in the market for labor, in our money-based, mixed-market, political-economy.
Communism is a train wreck, every time it's tried. What $ amount as a minimum wage? For just those working, or a larger pool?
We may not be moral enough to establish a divine Commune of Heaven on Earth, but why not follow our Founding Fathers' commandments and secure the Blessings of (individual) Liberty to ourselves and our posterity? Since the infrastructure and laws are already in place, why not simply solve for official poverty as well?
I described my intpretation of this idea, please provide your sequence of events. Except for Lasik and cosmetic surgery Health care is subsidized by the government. What has happend to the prices for health care, and the prices for Lasik and cosmetic surgery? Why is that?
Are you claiming that something similar would be bad for labor? How do you explain S&P CEO wage ratios? All of it cannot be attributed to corporate welfare that even pays bonuses.
Government regulation that raised the barrier to entry so high that the S&P has no real competition, so they can charge what they want (much more than they are worth, but where else can you go?). Some of that extra profits goes to buying off politicians and regulators, some of it goes to paying extremely high executive compensation.
You may be missing some of the global consequences of global economy. Why do you believe that specific sector does not simply hire illegals as CEOs to lower their costs?
i - How does an investor making money stimulate the economy unless we are all investors? How does a business making money help anyone but the business unless that money is used to pay it's employees (well)? We don't have any of these "unlesses" in America because many people only live per paycheck and therefore can't invest. And the trend for pay has shown a decrease for middle earners and sharp increase for top earners (This is opposite of the premise of trickle down you mentioned above "Trickle down means make it easier for businesses and investors to make money, will stimulate the economy."). ii - I'm suggesting there already is a large sum of money concentrated only among a few people (in America). Then asked if this situation could possibly spark economic growth by a trickling effect. The best answer I've heard is the Perfect Competition assumption and how it might work in this environment. Unfortunately America is no where near a state of perfect competition. If you live in America your seeing trickle-up before your eyes. The problem is that it's not trickling back down. -Hence the thread and why I'm curious if the hypothesis (I prefer to use hypothesis because the word theory suggest a fact, to me) has any genuine supporters.
Why do you believe that massive quantities of money cannot be "magically" created out of thin air, and called, fiat money? In my opinion, having access to The People's printing press at an official and federal Mint should be used from a macroeconomic paradigm; to stimulate the economy in a manner analogous to a rising tide lifting all boats. Eliminating a naturally occurring natural unemployment rate under Capitalism could be done relatively effortlessly under sufficient Socialism, to provide for the general welfare and common defense of the United States. In that manner, full employment of resources could be said to be achieved, by a new equilibrium and new natural unemployment rate below one percent.
Drawbacks aside, but unfortunately it seems for the trickle down hypothesis. So at this point most people either against the trickle down idea, or have not been able to provide concrete evidence for it. So that said (and combined with a bad economy), who's voting republican in '12 for economic issues?
Interesting question. Right wingers tend not to understand economics (see their social groups for evidence of very basic errors), but they may be more easily manipulated by economic buzz-words.
The $2T in deficit spending isn't enough? Then the socialist countries should be thriving, which would those be?
I agree with you that under any form of alleged Capitalism, it should merely take Capital, to make more Capital; what you claim of our current regime of deficit spending does not seem to conform to that Capitalist maxim regardless of which party is in office. In my opinion, a $2T investment in the general welfare should be providing a return through a positive multiplier effect on our political-economy. What you are describing is not about investing The Peoples' money, but simple mediocre public policy decisions on the part of our elected representatives to government, even with recourse to the resources of the entire United States to be able to come up with Pareto Optimal solutions, as an opportunity cost to our less useful, wars on abstractions. Most truer communist economies have actually solved for official poverty by simply requiring a work ethic. Why do you believe our mixed-market political-economy should emulate that form of Communism, instead of securing the Blessings of (individual and economic) Liberty to ourselves and our posterity in a market friendly manner that could solve for a natural unemployment rate and official poverty when due to a simple lack of income that would otherwise be obtained from a more efficient market for labor?
