Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "THROWBACK: Chomsky - The 'Invisible Hand' Is A Myth" video.

How does Smith lose credibility? We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. That along with other regulations is driving businesses out. It isn't the free market but lack of a free market. Adam Smith was right.
4
So Chomsky, a guy who never studied economics and has done nothing but read and write is a genius on the subject? Chomsky needs to just stick to linguistics. Why are companies leaving the US? Because of regulations. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, it is to the benefit of the company to go elsewhere. Adam Smith talked about in the invisible hand that people are going to go and do what benefits them the most. It is a benefit for the company to remove jobs in their homeland and go overseas when you have a government that makes it too expensive to do work in their home land. Chomsky is wrong in his analysis. And if Kyle is an economics "nerd" than I must be a scholar because he doesn't seem to realize this.
3
***** There are more than just taxes that cause companies to leave.
2
***** Have you ever met anyone from Russia? Go talk to some people from Russia who live in the US now and they will tell you how miserable it is there. They are impressed with free constant water from the tap and cheap bread in the store. You talked later about outsourcing jobs. The lack of a free market made it so businesses had to go someplace else for cheaper labor. It is too expensive to do business here due to regulations and taxes. Also, many jobs have been lost throughout the years. They are replaced with higher skilled and higher paying jobs that are more productive. Instead of asking for all these low skilled jobs to come back how about we push people to gain more skills.
2
***** There is always demand for better things. Businesses know this and will push to sell better products at a more affordable price. When the TV came out people demanded it so TVs became more affordable and then better TVs came out simply because people demand better things. If people had less money than that means businesses will have to make products more affordable. Businesses can't price themselves out of the market, people won't buy their goods and services and they would make no money. Just giving money to people is one thing that causes inflation. Setting a price floor on labor either eliminates workers from the workforce or raises prices because you are paying more to produce the same amount. The New Deal prolonged the recession. There is no such thing as a "living wage". You can go up to someone individually and determine what wage they need to make to survive based on their situation. But you can't determine a "living wage" as a whole. You also have to realize that when the min. wage was established in 1938 it didn't cover all sectors of the workforce. Also those that were handicapped we exempt from it because due to their situation they wouldn't be worth the price floor mandated by the government.
1
***** If the min. wage would have kept up with inflation than it would be $4.22/hr.
1
***** Capitalism is not buying out big government. That is the complete opposite of capitalism. Also the problem of businesses buying out the federal government could be solved if it didn't have power to begin with. If the federal government didn't have so much power than it couldn't be bought. When businesses gain an advantage by buying out politicians who have the power to make an uneven playing field in the market that is when you have businesses who don't care. They can use the government to squash any competitors and bail them out if needed. With capitalism you don't have that. That means businesses have to produce the best products at an affordable price or their competitors will take over. There is nothing wrong with profits. Profits means more investment which means more jobs and progress because in capitalism that is what you have to invest in. Buying off politicians isn't capitalism.
1
joe jarden This is a response to all comments, not just to joe. Yes the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. We have cuts to attract businesses but they are still high. It is easier to do business in a place with a simplified tax code and less regulations which other countries have. Someone mentioned greed. What is wrong with greed? Everyone runs on it. That is the idea of the invisible hand. Everyone pursues what is best for them. While businesses go for cheaper labor it is because people want cheaper products. You also have to look at that the US is a highly developed society. We have people that get paid very well due to high skills. Low skill low wage jobs are going to developing countries and high skill high wage jobs are taking over. Those jobs are seeing massive pay raises and it is because of something called skilled bias technological change. Business go overseas because it is in the best interest of them. It would be the best interest of others to pursue higher skilled jobs to earn more and keep up. High skill jobs will be around unless regulation pushes them away. We are seeing this as well. My overall problem with Noam Chomsky is that he has done nothing but read and write. Not saying that isn't important, as a man pursuing a PhD I understand. But you need real world experience in the private sector. Chomsky is ignorant when it comes to economics mainly due to lack of experience. He doesn't see how businesses do help out local communities and want to stay put and help others. His thinking of the invisible hand is flawed because he isn't well read in society. I respect Chomsky for all he has done but his real world experience is lacking. You spend you life behind books and write and then people treat you as the smartest man ever you will get this way. But when someone challenges him like I just did they get ridicule. To counter Chomsky on this argument we don't have capitalism or the free market in the US. We have too much regulation and it drives businesses away. That is why businesses leave for their best interest. It is no different than an individual leaving a certain city or town due to lower cost of living or better extracurricular activities. People will do what benefits them. Chomsky was wrong in Adam Smith like he is wrong on most economic issues.
1
richard Hines I never said I was against regulations. If you know me I support state rights and want the states to control domestic policies which is regulations. It is a completely different issue.
1
richard Hines Your thinking on supply side economics is flaws. The counter is demand side. With demand side there will always be demand. Because of human greed that everyone has there is always a demand. It was greed that had people wanting color TVs so companies pushed to create better TV in color at an affordable price so get a profit because of greed. Same can be said about other forms of technology, goods and services. If someone makes a poor investment they will suffer but if they make a good investment they will do well. Your thinking that greed is bad is completely wrong in that it drives our economy. You criticism of supply side economics, which is a saying I never use but will go with it is wrong. And you analysis of state rights is immature and isn't even worth much of a response.
1
polemius01 To start, state rights. We are bounded by the constitution. The Constitution grants state rights and places limitations on all governments so no state government can create some crazy policy. The idea of state rights is the have government but control over it. It is easier to control state and local governments and one can always move and still be a US citizen. The problem we have now is that the federal government, which "represents" over 300 million people, has so much power that it can be bought. Where with state rights we can move away for corrupt states or change them, it is hard to do at the federal level. We don't have capitalism in this country. Look up the definition and see what is going on. Greed is what progresses our country. It was someone being greedy that wanted a color TV to either build one or have someone build one and sell it. It was someone being greedy that refused to do math on paper on pencil and wanted a pocket calculator. It cost over $200 when it came out, now cellphones with cameras and calculators cost that much. Who cares if some guy owns 2 mansions? People have the ability to buy a home. Your line of thinking places a cap on success and eliminates progress. We might as well go back to the stone age and not progress from there. We all live in little huts. I know what kind of work it takes to get a doctorate. One problem with doctorate degrees is that people tend to pigeonhole themselves in being very knowledgeable in one skill but lack experience in others. But people in society make them to be very intelligent just because of their PhD. I met some doctorate and candidates who I thought were foolish and myopic. I met some people only possessing a high school diploma that were incredibly intelligent. It comes down to experience. You spend your whole live in academics and never pursue anything else than you will lack experience. You can criticize my attempts to get a PhD but by the way you present yourself it doesn't seem like you know much yourself.
1
richard Hines Sorry I didn't proof read my youtube comment. I will have to do that next time. Purchasing power plays a huge part. Companies are going to push to give the best product available at an affordable price. There comes a time when they simply can't lower their price. Now if you were to do something as give everyone in poverty $100,000 that would cause inflation and prices will go up. The reason is because you can't have consumption without production. There will always be demand but one can't purchase something that doesn't exist. So you claiming that I alluded to demand playing no part is wrong. It plays a huge part as well because there is always demand. People simply want better things that make their lives easier and companies will push to offer it to people. I am not trolling, I am giving another perspective on the issue. You need to read my comments closer and with an open mind.
1
richard Hines Someone is paid that much because they are valued at that much. So what? You want to place a cap on success? Who cares what someone makes? You first flaw in your lack of understanding of economics is that you don't know what money is. Look into that first. And it is natural for people to focus on their friends and family. If you don't have friends and family then what are you worth? Think about that.
1
JD00720 So when does self interest stop and greed begin? It always seems to me that it is always the other person who is greedy. The thing with greed is that everyone is greedy. I am sure that my boss would love to pay me very little and have more money for himself but he can't because if he did then I would take a job somewhere who is willing to pay me for my skill. My greed of more money has it so my boss will pay more. The greed of his competitor does as well. If I become too greedy and ask for too much than nobody will hire me. There is nothing wrong with greed. I bet if I knew you I could point out a lot of times where you are greedy. For example, you are watching youtube videos. Why? Why not spend that time cleaning graffiti off a wall? You greedy person would rather watch youtube videos instead of helping the community.
1
polemius01 What flaws? You are resorting to name calling. Seems like you can't counter anything I says except with "you're wrong".
1
richard Hines Resorting to name calling. I never said that I did it all on my own. The simple fact is that I put in the work and if I didn't those people that helped me would have helped someone else if I didn't put in the time. Here is an example. Michael Phelps wouldn't have won all those gold medals if someone didn't build a pool, kept it clean, coached him and so on. But it was ultimately him that put in the hours swimming that won him the gold. All those other people and their work is irrelevant if Phelps didn't do the hard work. I have no problem helping others, I just don't like not benefiting from my hard work. People help others all the time. I see it where those with money help out someone the work with or one of their friends. People really don't like helping the lazy person who contributes nothing to them.
1
Matt R I see that one has already done it. Funny thing is that these liberals don't understand that I was raised in a poor family. My parents worked hard to give me nice things and I am working hard to earn a lot of money. We didn't ask for handouts. Usually when someone resorts to name calling that is when I know that the conversation has ended. No amount of information would ever open them up. Nobody has to completely agree with what I am saying but when they disregard it and call me a troll or a racist or that I hate poor people it really shows their level of intelligence. I get angry at time but in the big picture it means that I will always have a job.
1
polemius01 Ok 1. Chomsky has become a man that people feel everything he says is correct. As someone put it he is a living encyclopedia. He is knowledgeable in a lot of ways but that doesn't mean he knows everything and isn't without flaws. His thinking on the economy is flawed and what he said about Adam Smith and the invisible hand isn't correct. The guy doesn't know everything. 2. I will ask you where does self interest end and greed begins? It could be self interest to own multiple homes? How many bedrooms you have? If you have more than one then I can call you greedy. Why are you not living in a studio with three other people? You must be greedy if you aren't? Do you own a car? Why? Why not walk? Are you too good for the bus? You must be greedy. You are watching youtube videos? Why? Why not use that time to pick up trash or help the community? You are too greedy to do that and rather than help society. You see, it is always the other person who is greedy. It is always the person that has more than you who is greedy. 3. A proper education leads to intelligence. Someone may be "educated" on paper but lack intelligence. 4. Since when did I say I didn't care for the poor? 5. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism Definition of capitalism. We have regulations and taxes that are not a part of the free market. Something simple is the min. wage. That doesn't allow people who are at a disadvantage to work for less to better themselves. We don't have capitalism in this country. 6. You were criticizing my PhD by saying I was getting it at a website. No, I am doing actual research and writing to pursue it. 7. I never said Chomsky was out of touch. I said that his understanding of economics is flawed. Just like my understand of linguistics is flawed in that I hardly studied it and only speak on language. Could it be that he doesn't know everything? And this is twice now that you mentioned "right-wing rhetoric" which means nothing to me in that I am a moderate. I don't listen to much right wing talking points. 8. When then I go to "right wing" definitions? 9. I responded to challenged statements quite well. 10. I do cite, when I cite I get called a troll or names like you just did. And it isn't so much citing but instead expanding on something that was presenting in a very broad and deceptive way. I understand that there were many people who were raised poor. I applaud those that worked out to get out of it and I have seen it. I also see a lot of poor people who are poor simply because they are lazy. Go work at a Title I elementary school and see parents who are drunk and don't take care of their kids. Parents who don't work or broken homes. I feel sorry for the kids but those parents are poor for a reason. I don't troll "progressive" videos, I try to give a different side of the story. My problem with "progressives" is that they are very deceptive in what they do. They present their side of the argument better but that still doesn't mean they are correct. Read my comment on another Secular Talk video about the 0% tax and the 100% tax rate done recently. I laid out how we can't compare the US to other countries because we are too diverse. That is never mentioned. I laid out how wealth inequality isn't bad and is apart of the market. The problem is that you are so radical that you can't even fathom that there is an other side to the argument. I get criticized by conservatives as well which comes with the territory of being a moderate. I suggest that you not be so myopic and read up a little more on what is going on.
1
richard Hines I say that knowing there are people out there who lack intelligence and thus are not a threat to my employment opportunities. While it angers me knowing those very same people have a vote, which I support, and contribute to hindering the progress of our country. I know that I have the skill set to get a high paying job and be well off, retired at an early age and have a nice home. I can give out knowledge like I am doing now and help in a lot of ways but you can lead the horse to water you just can't get it to drink.
1
***** Ok, show me. Show me how I am wrong.
1
***** No. But I have been called stupid. But I haven't been shown to be wrong yet. Seems like you are making attacks without justifications.
1
polemius01 By comment three I realized that all you are doing is attacking me and this discussion has no point any more. This is a youtube comment page, not my dissertation. I am not going to spend a lot of time editing and correcting my posts. Any poor grammar and sentence structure is due purely from lack of proof reading due to me valuing other activities in life. You talked about getting a PhD on a webpage. I would be honest I have never heard of that and really it doesn't make sense. To obtain a PhD you have to do research and present it to a committee. By the way you wrote you alluded to my PhD program being made up on the internet. I went back and re-read my post. There are some errors there but the substance is understandable. You seem to not understand them and have resorted to personal attacks. Actually you went to personal attacks a while ago but now you are expanding them. You haven't told me what is the difference between greed and self interest. I gave you examples in how your argument in that is flawed. I assume you own a car. Is it because you are too greedy to walk? You watch youtube videos for your pleasure instead of going out in the community and helping. Is it because you are too greedy to help others on your free time? I can easily label you as greedy based on what you are saying. You greed vs self interest argument doesn't work. Not all poor people are lazy. But typically you are poor for a reason. There is nothing wrong with my anecdotal evidence. That is called experience. I have seen poor people rise up from hard work and succeed in life. It can be done. That is why I am highly critical of those who don't work hard and improve. They are lazy and are poor because of it. What is your suggestion for helping the poverty situation? I would like to hear that and don't resort to personal attacks or claiming I only support "right wing talking points".
1
richard Hines I actually do have a paper that has been peered reviewed and published. It was during my undergrad work.
1
JD00720 What is "rational" self interest. I am not trying to be a troll here but a major criticism in what I am saying to polemius01 is that one can consider anything greedy. You used the example of a poor drug addict. That person could really have nothing left to live for and is basically using drugs to make their last few days happy, thus their own self interest. Others in their own self interest could avoid them all together. Or, others from their own greed could refuse to help them but donating to get them in rehab or giving them a place to live and restart life. There is really no difference between self interest and greed. It is subjective and you showed that when you used the word "rational". Greed isn't the prime mess for the economic mess we are in. Greed drives an economy. Our economic mess is because of an uneven playing ground due to the federal government overreach which doesn't allow people to pursue their greed.
1
richard Hines I am not going to tell you the paper I published because if I did then you would know who I am. I personally like to remain anonymous hear. There are crazy people that will look me up and then who knows what is next. So whether or not you believe me on my paper doesn't matter because it does exist. It was published in Physics Review A, that is all I will tell you. All you mentioned could be greed to you, but could easily be self interest. You talk about dumbing chemicals which exceeds fines for example. They do that because in their self interest they will be saving money. Society allows it because it allows for a cheaper product in their self interest. So you are telling me you don't find a way to manipulate the system? A lot of what you listed were laws that were broken or didn't have harsh enough punishments. Laws are created by the government. It is in your self interest, or greed, to have a government to target certain business practices and do what you want. And it is in their self interest, or greed, to give them an advantage in the market. You didn't distinguish between greed or self interest. You did point out some problems with the system but what you ended up doing is calling companies greedy for doing something that you don't like. You don't like it when they put money in offshores account so you call them greedy. But it isn't greedy for you to want the money to stay here and you take more of it in taxes. What you did is say they are greedy for doing something that benefits them but you aren't for wanting something that benefits you. As I said near the beginning, it is always the other person who is greedy in one's perspective.
1
richard Hines So instead of an intelligent rebuttal you just name call. I am not a parrot, I didn't lie, and I am not a troll. I am giving you a different perspective of something. In this case it is greed vs. self interest. What you consider to be greedy someone else can see it as self interest or vice versa.
1
polemius01 My attempt is to show that what is greed to one person could be self interest to others. Like I said, you are too greedy to not help others but instead watch and comment on youtube videos. Get to work your dirty communist.
1
polemius01 I made the "dirty communist" remark to more or less mock you. That is because you are not greedy but other people are, according to you. You want others to work while you reap all the benefits. You make this claim that there is a difference between greed and self interest but can't give examples of what. You fail to realize that it I subjective. You seem to get a little perturbed when I call you greedy. Surely you are not greedy, but I bet I can point out times where you are, or I feel you are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, "polemius01". So sorry about yours.
1
polemius01 Well you can question my ability to obtain a PhD but you will not be on my committee so it doesn't matter. I usually don't resort to mocking people but I did because you played the usual game of people are greedy but don't admit that you are yourself. I say one example is businesses moving money off shores. So it is greedy to try to stretch your dollar and gain more? Do you work for free? Have you never pursued a raise or get the best deal? You must be greedy. As I said what is greedy and what isn't is subjective. It is always to other person who is greedy according to one. But if one were to look in the situation than they will most likely see they are not greedy.
1
polemius01 I agree with what you said. It all comes back to that you don't understand that being greedy or pursuing self interest is subjective. That is where I am open minded and use critical thinking and you are not.
1
polemius01 I did. Lets take another approach than. If someone becomes too greedy than others won't have anything to do with them. If I become greedy and refuse to help than others won't help me. It is in my self interest to not be greedy. This is where you argument of greed and self interest falls apart again. It is all subjective and if someone sees someone as greedy then they won't get any help. It is in the self interest of others to avoid those who are greedy. It is like the video I linked to earlier on capitalism and greed. If a business owner were to charge too much and pay too little than they will get no business and won't get any good workers. It is in their own self interest to pay well and give the best product at an affordable price. So your argument of self interest and greed falls apart because one it is subjective, and two people in their own self interest will avoid the greedy.
1
richard Hines No. What is greedy and self interest is subjective. And it is one's own self interest to not be greedy. Someone made the claim we have problems because of greed. But someone being greedy wouldn't behoove them as it is in the self interest of others to avoid them.
1
polemius01 Once again this is a youtube comment section. I spend around 3 minutes on these comments. I am going to spend over 3 years on my dissertation. Sorry for me not wanting to edit a comment. So now we are getting somewhere. The old Walmart example. Walmart can always choose to close down some of their stores. In the city I live in in the past 10 years Walmart has open 2 Walmarts and are working on a 3rd. I live within equal driving distances of 2 of them, it all depends which way on I80 I want to drive on. Walmart pays above the min. wage, they can always pay everyone at the min. wage. They offer a variety of products for 24 hours at an affordable price. They can always choose to close down some of their stores or close their doors at night. Instead they open more stores and create more jobs and pay competitive wages for retail. We have 1 Target in our town. Local grocery stores as in Hy Vee and Raley's are great to shop at and I do but don't all the time because their prices are higher, their selection is lower and they are not open 24 hours. At times I am driving late at night or early in the morning and it is nice to have a Walmart open to get what I need. Now you are confused on wealth and income. In the US a person with no assets or debt can have $10 in their pocket and have more wealth than 25% of Americans. That is because wealth is net worth. A homeowner has 30 times more wealth than a renter. Does that mean homeowners are greedy and renters aren't? Well, when you factor in that on average around 60% of an average person's wealth is tied into their home beyond owning a home the average person doesn't have much wealth. A lot of people, especially those who are young, have negative wealth of either home loans or in my generation, college loans. They could be well off. I have negative wealth due to college loans but I have my own apartment, I don't miss any meals, I have a reliable car, nice clothes and so on. I have negative wealth due to college loans but I still have a nice income. After my schooling I will earn enough to pay off my loans, get a home, and eventually retire at an early age and have positive wealth. Now take the Walton family. They own 50% of Walmart stocks. That is Walmart, the buildings, the land it sits on and the fact that it is profitable means Walmart's value is very high. That is why the Walton's have so much wealth, they own the majority of a business that is valued very high. It is similar to my former boss who was a small business owner. He had more wealth than my dad simply because my boss owned a business that was profitable and had value. My dad instead worked. They both owned homes and were well off but due to a difference of lifestyles my former boss had more wealth. He wasn't more greedy but just made a living someway else. The Walton's developed their wealth. Wealth doesn't exist, it is what something is worth based on what the market makes it worth. The market has what the Walton's own valued pretty high compared to my car which isn't valued as high. That is what wealth is. There has, is, and always will be wealth inequality. It doesn't mean someone is greedy, it just means people pick different lifestyles. I will earn my PhD and still have little wealth because I won't own a business or a nice car. I will own a decent house but that is it. My former boss just has a high school education but will have more wealth simply because he took on the challenge of developing the value of a business and land where I will take on the challenge of education and then entering the workforce. I will probably earn a higher income than him but he will still have more wealth. From my experience liberals are "liberal" with other people's money. You are an example. You claim that the Walton's are greedy and you are alluding to that we need to attack them to get their money. As I said, the Walton's can always close down Walmarts or raise prices or cut wages and hours if they want too. They don't. I don't envy the Walton family. I don't envy a lot of rich people. I work with rich people quite a bit. My experience is that they got where they did with hard work. They worked hard and had help from the people, who at the time were well off, that they worked for. I am working with people who are rich and well off and they help me while I work hard in college and life and when I become well off I will help others who work hard around me and for me. People who are well off don't want to have their money taken from them to give to some moocher of society or some homeless person who simply refuses to pull their own weight. People who are rich or well off do help others because they got there from help of others where were well off. But they are going to help others who work hard for them and they know well. My suggestion to you is to work hard. Volunteer your time in a program that have people who are well off. College is a great place to do it. With that you can do volunteer internships. Don't do the bare minimum but work harder than everyone else. You will see how much those who are rich and well off actually donate their time and money to help others. You feel sad for the homeless person, great, help them with your money, not with someone else's. But don't call other's greedy just because you feel they are. Once again, what is greedy and what is self interest is subjective. You may feel I am greedy for not helping a homeless person. But if you actually know how much I volunteer my time you may feel otherwise. Or you may feel I should volunteer my time to instead help the homeless. Honestly you have a lot to learn. You need to focus on yourself a little more and not envy people like the Walton family and really realize the full story.
1
richard Hines 1. Not an excuse, just a fact. 2. There is no government assistance to Walmart. It isn't Walmart's fault that those employees simply refuse to develop skills and make themselves more marketable and thus earn more. Walmart doesn't have to hire those people. They can always close down some of their stores or cut hours or pay the min. wage. Plus, Walmart is always blamed in these situations. Why not other retail stores as in Target or Sears? They hire less and pay around the same. People make the asinine comparisons of Costco even though they have a different business model than Walmart. But just for the sake of it people state how well Costco pays, but why are there no complaints about how little they hire? Walmart is always the target when one compares them to other companies they are not bad. 3. The mentioning of the person with only $10 of worth shows simply why we have wealth inequality in this country. It is because quite a bit of people have loans as in home loans or college loans. They have negative wealth but have a nice income. I never said homeowners are greedy. I asked that question because the previous comment ripped on the Walton's for having so much wealth. Talking about homeowners were to one, show that the average person has little wealth beyond their home, and two, show how shallow their argument is in criticizing the Walton's family of wealth ownership. They were alluding to how a family who owns so much wealth is greedy. Thus a home owner is greedy compared to a renter according to them. Actually, in reality, they don't know what wealth is. 4. So what. 5. We have always seen wealth inequality. A major problem we have is that people constantly confuse wealth with income or say they are the same thing. Wealth does not equal income. We have, do, and always will have wealth inequality. It is simply how the market works. Not everyone wants the challenge of owning and running a business. Not everyone even wants the challenge of owning a home and would rather rent. Individuals who don't own a home or run a business have little wealth. Wealth inequality isn't bad. What is bad is forcing actual redistribution of the wealth because it is impossible. Wealth is developed, it just doesn't exist. 6. Once again, Walmart doesn't have to give those people jobs. If the only job you are capable of getting is a part time job at Walmart than you need to improve yourself or take it as a opportunity to improve yourself. Instead of displaying those workers as victims we should be pushing them to develop more skills which improves our society as a whole. 7. I wasn't liberal policies that grew the middle class. It was liberal policies that allowed the US to have the highest corporate tax rate in the world which scares corporation. It is liberal policies that have pointless regulations and higher taxes which causes businesses to raise prices and cut job. When it comes to economics liberals feel that goods and services just appear out of no where. They push policies that hinder production making the situation worse. 8. The government actually doesn't have resources. It has to take in a form of a tax. Resources have to be developed and the market does that. Usually the government taxes the market and invests the money poorly which limits growth and contributes to the poverty problem. The government is the reason why we see rising prices in college education and healthcare. The government is the reason why we see limited economic growth and job growth. This thinking that the government can put a dent in poverty is flawed because where are the resources going to come from? Think of that. It comes back to you can't consume if you don't produce. The government isn't going to produce something out of thin air. I am confident I am going to do quite well in my PhD. Here in the end you basically said that I am parroting someone else's thoughts when I am not. You are though. You are doing the whole blame Walmart game. One business out of a complex economy. The Walmart argument is myopic and flawed but people love to use it. As I told the other individual, you need to look into the situation a little more.
1
polemius01 1. Again, a youtube comment, not something I am going to spend time editing. I am pursuing a PhD in Chemical Physics, writing is not a strength for me, math and science is. 2. What is a "living wage"? Walmart pays competitive market rate for retail. They don't pay more because they simply can't afford too. The term "living wage" is a made up term that doesn't mean anything because that is also subjective. A living wage for one person could be very low, even below the min. wage where as a living wage for someone else could be has high as $30/hr. or more if you have children, are diabetic, have to commute far for a job and so on. It isn't Walmart's fault that the workers are unable to put themselves in a position to make enough to live. 3. You have confused wealth and income. Wealth is assests minus liabilities. Income is how much money you earn and have. As I said one can make a lot in terms of income but due to liabilities have negative wealth. 4. The Walton's and my boss made their money by generating capital. Yes I put in the work and so did others, but my job at the time, and that janitor at Walmart is market at a low rate due to the minor skill set involved, how easy they are to replace, and the low demand for their job. The Walton's are running an entire business, a multi-billion dollar business. My boss was running a business. They do a lot of work, they generate a lot of capital. They are individuals who are highly skilled and are hard to replaced and thus are worth a lot in the market. The harsh reality is that the people Walmart hires are easily replaceable. 5. Costco is a bad comparison. They sell items in bulk, they are only open during peak hours. Their business model allows them to move more product per hour meaning they produce more capital per hour. Walmart is a 24 hour one stop shop. Their business model moves less product per hour but they cater to being open at anytime and selling individual products at a low price. You can't compare Walmart to Costco. Plus, why are there no complaints of Costco not hiring more? I guess they are greedy. They want to hire very little, have people travel longer distances to buy their goods and only when they are open. Walmart is flexible to the consumer's needs. Walmart simply can't afford higher wages. 7. If someone is greedy than people will work against. That is a fact. If someone is holding all the resources than society will work against them. Walmart caters to the consumers. They can be greedy and open less business, hire less, and be open less. They run a business where they cater to customers who want cheap goods anytime. Costco caters to those who want to buy bulk items at a cheaper price. Target sells nicer things and cater to those with higher income who want better household items but the goods are more expensive. You simply don't like someone because in your eyes they have a lot and you have little. You call them greedy but you are starting to show your greed. You want to criticize one business for not paying a higher wage just because you don't like them and think they are evil. Really, who is being greedy here? You or the business who has the power to close their doors down and hire less? I don't like Walmart, I only shop there because it is all I can afford. When I get a higher income I will go elsewhere. But I will never say Walmart is greedy. It serves an important role in our society. Why do you want to destroy jobs and raise prices and hurt those who have low income? I think the answer is because you are jealous. You are jealous because someone is more successful than you are.
1
richard Hines Ok, what resources does the government have? Please enlighten me. I never said everyone will be king. Placing a cap on success doesn't promote progress. I want a society where even the poor can live comfortably. They way we do that is by progress, not placing a cap on it.
1
polemius01 1. Once again this is a youtube comment page. I told you I am going to spend 3 years on my dissertation. 2. You can look at an individual and determine their "living wage" based on the situation they are in but it is different for everyone. It can be very little for some, even $0, and it can be high for others. The fact is that a business pays someone on what they are worth in the market. That is determined by one's experience, skills, dedication to the workplace and most importantly they amount of capital they create. A worker at Walmart simply doesn't produce much. They are paid based on the variables I mentioned, it is up to them to make a living off of it. If you don't earn enough either cut expenses or find a way to make more. Paying someone over market rate ruins the economy and ruins a business. 3. You still seem to confuse wealth with income. 4. My boss got that capital by taking the financial risk by investing in the company and investing in me as a worker. If the business fails than I don't have a job but my boss loses his investment. Yes someone works to produce but someone has to have the ability to invest to give something society wants. My boss didn't have to invest to create jobs or even give me a job. Same is with Walmart, the Waltons didn't have to invest to create jobs or hire people. People need a purpose to work. We can't just idly work, someone taking the financial risk and investing to give something people want drives the economy and creates capital. Why shouldn't they reap from the benefits? You seem to be greedy in wanting others to invest and do all the dirty work and than earning little in the process. 5. Costco and Walmart are different companies. Walmart is a 24 hour one stop shop where Costco sells bulk items are is open only during peak hours. Costco's model allows them to push more product per hour where Walmart's model caters to those who want to buy one item at 3 in the morning if the desire. You can't compare the two. It is like saying Costco is greedy because they don't pay as much as Google does. Also, why is there no complaints about Costco not hiring more? You never answered that. And asking Walmart to take in less profits means less investments and less overall growth and jobs for the economy. It is once again overpaying a worker above their productivity which ruins the value of the dollar. 6. I didn't respond to comment six because it would have been pointless to do so. 7. Walmart doesn't pay more because they simply can't afford too. I know what Costco pays and it is a great example of how different businesses are. Costco's business model allows them to pay more where Google's business model allows them to pay more. Walmart's business model pay's less but caters to customers more by offering cheap products for 24 hours. It is the variety of the market. People do shop at 3 in the morning, people don't want to buy bulk everything. Costco's example doesn't go against my view but yet supports my view and supports capitalism. What you have just shown is that you know little about how the market works or how different business models are. You know a forklift driver at Costco is marketed higher than the shelve stocker at Walmart. Not everyone business is the same and not every job is the same. Also what is adequate food, clothing, recreation and so on. That is subjective as well. Recreation for me actually earns me money, it might cost for some. You are kind of lost in the subject.
1
richard Hines So what do you suggest, we become slaves to the government? Once again the government has nothing until it produces something. That land is pointless unless it is developed. Money is worthless unless given value in the market. The government can't do that unless it is done by force.
1
richard Hines No, land, resources and money have zero value until society gives it value. Does the government own land? Yes, but it has zero value until it is developed. Now it isn't going to get developed itself, someone has to develop it. So either the government forces people to work to develop it or pay them. Now how are they going to get the money? By printing it. Problem with printing it is that if you print too much than you oversaturate the market with money lowering it's value. Zimbabwe is facing this problem and this is how the Roman Empire fell apart. It is called debasing the currency. You also run into the other problem of money basically being worth nothing until it is invested to create capital. Say the government paid workers $10,000 to build a library on land? How much is $10,000? It could be worth a lot if that library in some way produces a lot of capital, or it could be worth nothing if that library produces little capital. Basically the government would have spent $10,000 per worker to build something completely worthless. That is a poor investment. Another way government can get money is from taxes. Let the private sector invest money and improve the value of the dollar from smart investment and then tax it. Problem with taxes is that it is pulling money out of the hands of the investors who will give money value and improve the economy and putting it in the hands of the government who could waste it. The overall problem with government is that the main language behind it is politics. Are they going to spend money to actually improve society or to help out their buddies that helped them get into office? The latter is usually the result. It was like what Milton Friedman said in China years back. He saw them building a canal, he saw a bunch of workers with shovels and asked were are the bulldozers. A Chinese official said bulldozer kills jobs so they created more jobs but using shovel. Friedman said if it is jobs you want than get rid of the shovels and give them spoons. Government can create jobs but it won't create wealth or progress us. It will poorly invest money and simply spend money to buy votes to keep a job in office. Your slave argument is flawed. Slaves were forced to work, you have a choice to work or not. You have to remember that nothing appears out of thin air. So in reality the government doesn't have resources. What the government has is politics, something extremely dangerous is given too much power. Government has a role in society but not what you think.
1
richard Hines How, because making a claim without justification isn't going to work.
1
richard Hines But what determines the value of the land? Society does. Not the government. It isn't like the government creates money and says it is worth $X dollars. That means nothing until society gives it value. Same with inventions, those inventions are worthless until society deems it to have value. If a certain invention is necessary a private company will invent it. The government didn't invent the internet and NASA is being cut.
1
polemius01 1. The years put in is important. You need data to write about and present. 2. People don't need a certain amount of money. One can have very little money and live from farming and having a well to drink. The problem with the "living wage" is that it is different for everyone. You can look at individuals and determine their "living wage" based on their situation but you can't come up with one set amount for a living wage. If a law was created to pay everyone a "living wage" it will fail because prices will go up or people who are not worth that wage will not get a job. You are paid based on your market rate, it is up to you to make a living from that. 3. Ok, income "money received, especially on a regular basis, for work or through investments", Wealth "the value of all the property, possessions, and money that someone or something has" They are not the same. 4. My boss hired me at the time when I had very minimal work experience. He took a financial risk in hiring me. As years went on he gave me raises and gave me more responsibilities. After I finished my undergrad I had experience, skills and knowledge to pursue another job that paid more. Even though I was one of his best workers and reliable he couldn't pay enough to stay because he simply couldn't afford to pay me more thus I went elsewhere to earn more. That is right now graduate school. After grad school I will be able to get a higher paying job. My boss didn't have to hire me and I didn't have to take the job. He gave me raises but there came a point that it wouldn't have been profitable to pay me more even though I worked very well for him so I pursued another job. That is how capitalism works. He didn't use me. And you call me a sociopath? 5. You never explained Costco. You never explained why there is no criticism of how they don't hire as much as Walmart. You didn't explain why they don't pay as much as Google does. You didn't explain how they are different businesses and have different business models that allows them to cater to different customer's needs and also pay different. 6. Seems to me at this point you are just resorting to name calling. I have clearly laid out how you are mistaken on several issues and instead of an intelligent rebuttal you just name call. 7. Walmart simply can't afford to pay more. They are attacked constantly for low wages. Other retail stores pay around the same amount but Walmart is the one that is under attack. As I said they can always choose to close down stores, not be open 24 hours or even put in more self checkouts and hire less. They don't. Walmart pays competitive wages for retail, a job that doesn't even require a high school diploma. Adequate is subjective. What are those resources? Where are they going to come from? Is it fruits and vegetables or Ramen Noodles and rice? Is it heat and AC or running fans and wearing more clothes? Your argument falls apart easily when you are question on what is your level of adequate just like what is your level when something becomes greed. You throw around words that mean nothing unless defined and shown with examples. While you have tried to do that I rebuttal in how you are mistaken. I have clearly shown how even a company you don't consider greedy, Costco, can be in that they don't hire more. Costco can always hire some of those struggling Walmart employees, why don't they (I know why by I want you to think why)? You are resorting to name calling now. I will tell you some things. I spent the past 3 winters without heat. I don't use my AC . I don't have cable. I skip meals at times. I live 2000 miles away from family and don't see them often because I simply can't afford too. At the same time I am working hard to put myself in a position to be well off to where I have a comfortable life and can travel more. I am going to get there through hard work. And here you are saying everyone should have it just for being alive as in that lifestyle already exists and the resources and time for it is going to appear out of nowhere. Well if that is the case then why work? Your thinking is flawed. Things don't just appear out of nowhere, they come from work. Nobody is entitled to anything in life. You need to rethink about some things in life.
1
polemius01 The fact is that you are a communist. I can go on but you simply won't listen. Businesses are not there to be charities. They are there to invest and grow. Less profits means less investment and less growth. You have resorted to name calling which shows how weak you are in this discussion. You are simply paid based on what you are worth. Does it sound wrong? Slightly, but essentially we are all cogs in the wheel. Even the very rich and well off can be replaced. They get paid more because by a combinations of variables the market determines them to be worth that much. A CEO has to deal with potential lawsuits, competition from other companies, new technology and being creative, and they have the skills to do it. A cashier at Walmart has almost zero responsibilities. They are very easily replaceable. They are simply not worth much. You have two flaws in you arguments. One is that you simply don't understand what money really is. It isn't some finite resource, $20 is worth as much as a paper plate until it is invested. If society, and essentially the market, felt paper plates were worth $20 than $20 isn't worth much. If you pay $20 for a paper plate than you will be foolish and will be ruining your own personal finances. Same is with labor, certain labor is only worth a certain amount. Money has zero value until it is invested and creates capital. Overpaying ruins the value of the dollar. You other flaw is that you feel anyone rich is evil. So let us say we develop this "living wage". Now say that a person making it proceeds to spend their money on booze and strippers. Now what? Is that the time you finally say to them have some personal responsibilities? You have this mindset that people will do good but in reality people will pursue their self interest. Also, padding the bottom doesn't create wealth or grow the economy. The government can do a very good job at creating jobs, they can build the Keystone pipeline but do so using only spoons. Jobs will always be present because the thing will never get built. We can also outlaw all farm machineries and people can start plowing the fields by hand. Jobs will be create but wealth won't be because food production will drop. People on the bottom will have more jobs and more money but productivity will be low. We get better by investing on top, not artificially holding up the bottom. Humans can all survive off of bread and water, but is that really humane? This goes back to your greedy vs. self interest argument. You don't have a point when self interest stops and greedy begins. Surviving beyond bread and water can be greedy, why should that person get more? You didn't defend Costco well. You rip on Walmart all the time for wages but never criticize how Costco doesn't hire as much. What is stopping them from hiring more and paying them well? What is preventing Walmart from firing people? You also fail to realize that Costco and Walmart are two separate businesses with different models. It goes back to Google pays very well, why not Costco? You understanding of economics, businesses and life in general is minute. Remember this, when you are poor (even though you have access to high speed internet) and someone else is rich or well off just remember it is all one you. Life isn't that nice, it requires work. You can call me a sociopath all you want but while you are making excuses others are working, out of greedy according to you, to be better than you. You can keep crying, hopefully someday you will find out that it all comes back to you. I mentioned the human factor, people naturally will pursue their best interest. You seem to think they won't. People will use the system as I said about the man on "living wage" drinking and frivolously spending money. The only real solution to your argument is to have a government distribute out the resources evenly which is communisn which makes you a communist. You want that then live in Venezuela, you know the place with high crime and no toilet paper.
1
polemius01 No, a sociopath is one who thinks people are entitled to certain things just because they are born. You are not entitled to anything. Giving money and resources away to people who produce nothing is wasteful and ruins an economy. You have to produce before you can consume. Where is all this clothing and food and shelter going to come from? Thin air? Basically what you are saying is that the second you are born you are guaranteed some sort of standard in your life that you artificially created (and still didn't define) no matter what. That means that we are going to have a group of people working very hard to produce this standard of living for those that don't work. And you call others greedy? Fact is that you as a person is responsible for your life. You either have to make enough to live or have friends and family where are willing to help. But just giving money away to others above their production ruins the dollar and giving resources away to those same people is wasteful. Creating wealth is key. How do you think better cars come from? Or better computers or better food and so on. The pocket calculator use to cost over $200. Now for $300 I bought a phone with a calculator, camera, flashlight, internet access and so on. That is wealth creation for everyone. Is giving away resources to those that simply refuse to produce humane? Is lowering standards of living for everyone just so people who simply can't pull their own weight or don't have any friends or family to help them humane? What you are promoting is no more technology improvement. Lowering the quality of healthcare and food and technology and service. As I said Venezuela practices what you preach and they can't even get toilet paper because nobody is producing it. You also didn't address Costco. You just made excuses. Why doesn't Costco hire more? Why is there no criticism of them not hiring more? Yes they pay well which is great and all but so what? They hire very little. They are too greedy to hire more and pay them well. At the same time Walmart can always fire some of their employees and on longer be open 24 hours. This also goes back to how you didn't even acknowledge that Walmart and Costco are different companies and can't be compared. It is like comparing Costco to Google. As I said, you need to educate yourself on economics and business practices. You also need to educate yourself on life. Lowering everyone else's standards doesn't help. Your idea doesn't raise anyone's standards, it just lowers it for everyone because you can't consume what you don't produces. Maybe you can defend that, where is the production going to come from?
1
polemius01 So you can't prove a negative with Costco but you can with Walmart? That right there sums up your entire argument.
1
polemius01 Plus, for a guy who is "educated" in economics you can't seem to realize the Costco and Walmart are different businesses.
1