$15 NY min. wage already causing layoffs, reduced hours, higher prices

[A Voice from the Mountains]

NYC restaurants cutting staff hours as minimum wage hits $15

The legal minimum wage for New York City employers with 11 or more workers rose more than 15 percent on Dec. 31, 2018, to $15 per hour from $13, giving fast-food, retail and other employees a bump in pay. But some New York City restaurant owners say the latest minimum wage hike is forcing them to cut workers' hours just to stay afloat.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nyc-restaurants-cut-staff-hours-to-cope-with-minimum-wage-hike-hitting-15/


75% of full-service restaurants to cut employee hours
47% to eliminate jobs
87% to raise prices

All directly resulting from the implementation of a single policy, namely an increase in minimum wage by $2 per hour. In economic terms, that's a price floor being artificially raised above the natural supply/demand equilibrium, which is why businesses are having to compensate by firing people and reducing hours, and raising their prices. That's not a good thing.

Unemployment rates, inflation, and "working poor" rates will all increase in New York as a direct result of this policy, and the above is evidence already happening in real time.

It's sad because anyone who's ever had a real economics course won't be surprised in the least, while the people who promote these policies don't care in the least. More of the same, and New York takes one step closer to Venezuela status. One of these days I'm going to post a lengthy thread explaining how and why socialism causes artificial scarcity by destroying the free market's ability to set prices by supply and demand, widens the gap between the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor, and destroys the middle class. Contrary to popular misconception, economics is considered a science and not a matter of opinion. These things are absolutely predictable.

[mindbend8r]

I live in NY and its almost impossible to get an apartment here . Everything is just so expensive even on 15 dollars an hour. Its ridiculous

[Dennis Leahy]

... minimum wage for New York City employers with 11 or more workers rose more than 15 percent...

They either raise prices of the goods and services to directly reflect the additional labor cost, or the owners take less in profits (if still profitable with goods and services at the same prices and absorbing the additional labor cost.) This is an example of capitalism, not socialism. Why did you even mention socialism? Artificial scarcity is one of the ugly pillars upon which capitalism stands, again, why tag socialism?

You have to have seen the charts showing worker wages (nearly a flat line) over the last few decades, compared to profits and executive salaries (a line going more than 45° up and to the right.) Do you not see a problem here?

The cost of goods and services HAS gone up to the worker-consumer, way up, but worker wages have been stagnant for decades, and the executive pay and bonuses have skyrocketed and profits have skyrocketed. Do you not see a problem here? If not a moral/ethical one, at least an economic one? Even if you were a sociopathic capitalist, you wouldn't want the worker class so broke that they cannot buy goods and services, right? If normal course of doing capitalist business is to set your rates based on your market, and every restaurant in NYC just got hit with the same cost increase, where is the problem, really? In reality, the price of each hamburger in NYC will have to go up by $0.05 to cover the labor cost increase. It's not really a problem and the statistics you cited are someone's bogus conjecture.

If the US Congress wasn't full of democrats and republicans, minions of the Financial Elite and Power Elite, worker wages would have been incrementally stepped-up over the years, so there wouldn't be large, "economically disruptive" jumps in labor costs. A REAL livable working wage would probably be around $30/hr at today's cost of goods and services (even that would need to be tied to some regional economic parameters), and as shocking as that would be economically (because the fat cats would not drop their own pay to cover it, they would pass all of the new costs onto the consumer), capitalism wouldn't skip a beat.

Don't cry for capitalism. They won. The capitalists already won. It's very very near the end of the game of Monopoly, and they have all the hotels and all the property and all the utilities and they control the jail and they never go to jail... and it's statistically impossible for anyone else to win. They won. They own something like half the wealth of the world, and by the end of the game when the rest of us have nothing, they'll loan us some money, and get the game going again. No, don't cry for capitalism nor for the ruling globalist monsters who are all capitalists - they'll be just fine.

[Tam]

A slow clap to you, Dennis. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I work at a preschool, making 11 dollars an hour (which is shameful, given that tuition is 1k/month a pop). I love my job, though, aside from all the bull**** the (very well-paid) owner and management make.

I could make up to 15 hourly, but I would be working a soul-sucking desk job. Last time I did one of those, I gained 40 lbs in 10 months, and it wrecked my health, the aftermath of which I'm only beginning to feel. So I chose teaching small children for peanuts instead.

If I didn't have my boyfriend, I would have no other choice but to live with like 2+ roommates, and I'd be eating lots and lots of cup ramen. Forget good, high quality organic foods, or natural home products that I make.

Increasing the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour would only be bad because those at the top would not be willing to garnish their high salaries or, God forbid, cut profits for shareholders.

America sold out its soul long ago.

[ripple]

[QUOTE]More of the same, and New York takes one step closer to Venezuela status. One of these days I'm going to post a lengthy thread explaining how and why socialism causes artificial scarcity by destroying the free market's ability to set prices by supply and demand, widens the gap between the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor, and destroys the middle class. Contrary to popular misconception, economics is considered a science and not a matter of opinion. These things are absolutely predictable.

Voice , one of the great things about those that follow the road to Caracas, and one that you must make sure to mention , is the unfailing talent of most of their members as self proclaimed Socialists to see their own system's faults ; and then , --- abracadabra ------- lay them at the feet of the job creators .That is , the ones of capital importance.

[snoman]

meah.. it's simply 2 dollars more for us minimum wage-slaves.. AVFTMountains.
may I ask..
am I right in thinking you also are stuck on a minimum wage and having to work 2 or more jobs?
i'm assuming so

[ramus]

https://www.google.com/search?q=How+much+did+cars+cost+in+1964%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji1cSa4oHgAhUK9IMKHWK7CDIQzmd6BAgGEAk&biw=1440&bih=777


I just want to add a perspective to this : In 1964 minimum wage ........ $1.15

In 2018 ........ $10.50

54 years for a $9.35 raise in minimum wage . That's $0.17 1/2cents a year /about .... 1.6% a yr
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of a new home: $20,500.00 ......
Cost of a first-class stamp: $0.05 .... 1964
Cost of a gallon of regular gas: $0.30 ......
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1964, the average cost of a new car was $3,500. Today, you're paying around $24,680. In 1964 you could get a gallon of gas for around 25 cents. Today that price has skyrocketed to around $4 nationwide.

$24,680.00
- 3,500.00
------------------
$ 21,180.00 -divided by 54 yrs. = $392.22 a yr .. 18 1/2 % ..... a year

Cost of a dozen eggs: $0.54
Cost of a gallon of Milk: $0.95

There has been a real lag in the minimum wage for 54 years. Now it hurts, if they had been up front, and not cheated labor all these years then his would have had no big impact .

Corporations and Government who's to blame ? Margins are big enough to take this.

[AutumnW]

The minimum wage should be higher than 15.00 per hour. Much higher. If you are a job creator and can't afford to pay your staff a liveable wage then you don't have a viable business.

[AriG]

... minimum wage for New York City employers with 11 or more workers rose more than 15 percent...

They either raise prices of the goods and services to directly reflect the additional labor cost, or the owners take less in profits (if still profitable with goods and services at the same prices and absorbing the additional labor cost.) This is an example of capitalism, not socialism. Why did you even mention socialism? Artificial scarcity is one of the ugly pillars upon which capitalism stands, again, why tag socialism?

You have to have seen the charts showing worker wages (nearly a flat line) over the last few decades, compared to profits and executive salaries (a line going more than 45° up and to the right.) Do you not see a problem here?

The cost of goods and services HAS gone up to the worker-consumer, way up, but worker wages have been stagnant for decades, and the executive pay and bonuses have skyrocketed and profits have skyrocketed. Do you not see a problem here? If not a moral/ethical one, at least an economic one? Even if you were a sociopathic capitalist, you wouldn't want the worker class so broke that they cannot buy goods and services, right? If normal course of doing capitalist business is to set your rates based on your market, and every restaurant in NYC just got hit with the same cost increase, where is the problem, really? In reality, the price of each hamburger in NYC will have to go up by $0.05 to cover the labor cost increase. It's not really a problem and the statistics you cited are someone's bogus conjecture.

If the US Congress wasn't full of democrats and republicans, minions of the Financial Elite and Power Elite, worker wages would have been incrementally stepped-up over the years, so there wouldn't be large, "economically disruptive" jumps in labor costs. A REAL livable working wage would probably be around $30/hr at today's cost of goods and services (even that would need to be tied to some regional economic parameters), and as shocking as that would be economically (because the fat cats would not drop their own pay to cover it, they would pass all of the new costs onto the consumer), capitalism wouldn't skip a beat.

Don't cry for capitalism. They won. The capitalists already won. It's very very near the end of the game of Monopoly, and they have all the hotels and all the property and all the utilities and they control the jail and they never go to jail... and it's statistically impossible for anyone else to win. They won. They own something like half the wealth of the world, and by the end of the game when the rest of us have nothing, they'll loan us some money, and get the game going again. No, don't cry for capitalism nor for the ruling globalist monsters who are all capitalists - they'll be just fine.

Bravo Dennis! My sentiments exactly!

And if there are marginal entrepreneurs who have to rely upon paying slave wages to make their business profitable, then they didn't have a good business plan and should probably close up shop!

Its high time that the top tier stop living off of the backs of the working class.

Whenever we go out (quite rarely) and regardless of the service, we always make sure that our server has a minimum of a $20 tip for every hour we occupy his or her station. Even if the tip exceeds the tab.

[AriG]

And if I might offer some helpful insights to those of you who are working for slave wages - find a way out. The universe always delivers when you ask. You have the option of unionizing, of joining forces with others to create your own dream, - for example, Indigris- have you considered taking your valuable experience, intelligence and skills and starting your own pre-school? Even if you don't have the credentials to be licensed by the state, you certainly could either acquire the training, start a cooperative for parents who do not rely upon state subsidy, etc. Start with a day care instead. Certainly there are parents who would rather pay you directly? Don't have the funds? Try a Gofundme or apply for a small start up loan. There is grant money available for female entrepreneurs. And with the shortage of quality daycare? I am sure you'd have clients. You have as much power as any other human. You just need to make up your mind that you are going to accomplish a goal and forge ahead (with a well laid plan). And honestly? The more people that do this will result in a much higher wage for everyone. Take back your power! :victory:

[Justplain]

Really, if we are talking about the collective good for society, the group that creates the most innovation, jobs and wealth is the middle class. The middle class has been ground down in the industrialized world by these 'free trade' deals that aren't really free and just make it easy for the largest corporations to bypass local laws and tariffs (for instance, many products are much cheaper just across the border in the US but the average Canadian can't get those prices north of the border even though 'free trade' is in place).

Large corporations have been tasked with undertaking mega-projects, to give credit where credit is due. For instance, Canada's interior was opened by the Hudson's Bay Company, India was opened to trade by the East India Co., Canada's west was opened up by the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. These are also examples of imperialism against aboriginal societies. But megaprojects, or specialty projects, are where large corporations can be helpful.

My general conclusion is that our society can do well without large corporations, except when megaprojects are needed. I would tax the daylights out of the rest, and the wealthy. I would also burden commercial activity with stringent rules, such as requiring new products to be not harmful to the environment, worker rights & benefits, etc., before their products or services are rolled out. The influence of wealth in funding political corruption and fake science research has done untold damage to Western society.

How current governments can preach, and practice, tax cuts to corporations and the rich, whilst being literally bankrupt, is beyond reason.

Another thing I would do is get rid of the central banking model that requires growth in the economy to be funded by debt. Governments should print their own currency to the level of financing growth in the economy, and only borrow from the central bank when infrastructure projects require it. Central banks should just be used to fund commercial banks.

The focus of the system should be to make people independent as possible, and perhaps closer to the land. Small business and the middle class, and the poor, should be facilitated to conduct the activities they desire. Governments can probably provide free services, such as healthcare, dental, etc., to facilitate a 'just' society. People don't need to be 'socially engineered' or monetized as a commercial target, they need tech to live comfortably and be able to pursue humanistic goals, preferably and hopefully not driven by greed or materialism.

[Tam]

And if I might offer some helpful insights to those of you who are working for slave wages - find a way out. The universe always delivers when you ask. You have the option of unionizing, of joining forces with others to create your own dream, - for example, Indigris- have you considered taking your valuable experience, intelligence and skills and starting your own pre-school? Even if you don't have the credentials to be licensed by the state, you certainly could either acquire the training, start a cooperative for parents who do not rely upon state subsidy, etc. Start with a day care instead. Certainly there are parents who would rather pay you directly? Don't have the funds? Try a Gofundme or apply for a small start up loan. There is grant money available for female entrepreneurs. And with the shortage of quality daycare? I am sure you'd have clients. You have as much power as any other human. You just need to make up your mind that you are going to accomplish a goal and forge ahead (with a well laid plan). And honestly? The more people that do this will result in a much higher wage for everyone. Take back your power! :victory:

Well, in Texas, anybody can open up a daycare out of their own home.

Thing is, I live in a small apartment, and not only would that definitely break the lease, it would also prove logistically impossible.

I did consider this before, but the finances needed to get one open (you need toys, bathrooms, supplies, cubbies, etc.) are way outside what I can afford. I'll look into crowdfunding and grants, though.

Thank you :)

[Tam]

Really, if we are talking about the collective good for society, the group that creates the most innovation, jobs and wealth is the middle class. The middle class has been ground down in the industrialized world by these 'free trade' deals that aren't really free and just make it easy for the largest corporations to bypass local laws and tariffs (for instance, many products are much cheaper just across the border in the US but the average Canadian can't get those prices north of the border even though 'free trade' is in place).

Large corporations have been tasked with undertaking mega-projects, to give credit where credit is due. For instance, Canada's interior was opened by the Hudson's Bay Company, India was opened to trade by the East India Co., Canada's west was opened up by the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. These are also examples of imperialism against aboriginal societies. But megaprojects, or specialty projects, are where large corporations can be helpful.

My general conclusion is that our society can do well without large corporations, except when megaprojects are needed. I would tax the daylights out of the rest, and the wealthy. I would also burden commercial activity with stringent rules, such as requiring new products to be not harmful to the environment, worker rights & benefits, etc., before their products or services are rolled out. The influence of wealth in funding political corruption and fake science research has done untold damage to Western society.

How current governments can preach, and practice, tax cuts to corporations and the rich, whilst being literally bankrupt, is beyond reason.

Another thing I would do is get rid of the central banking model that requires growth in the economy to be funded by debt. Governments should print their own currency to the level of financing growth in the economy, and only borrow from the central bank when infrastructure projects require it. Central banks should just be used to fund commercial banks.

The focus of the system should be to make people independent as possible, and perhaps closer to the land. Small business and the middle class, and the poor, should be facilitated to conduct the activities they desire. Governments can probably provide free services, such as healthcare, dental, etc., to facilitate a 'just' society. People don't need to be 'socially engineered' or monetized as a commercial target, they need tech to live comfortably and be able to pursue humanistic goals, preferably and hopefully not driven by greed or materialism.

See, all of this sounds great, and potentially doable on paper, but humanity just isn't mature/evolved enough yet for this to work on any kind of macro-scale.

Still, there are aspects of Japanese and some Europe that the world should take notes from, America especially.

[Justplain]

Really, if we are talking about the collective good for society, the group that creates the most innovation, jobs and wealth is the middle class. The middle class has been ground down in the industrialized world by these 'free trade' deals that aren't really free and just make it easy for the largest corporations to bypass local laws and tariffs (for instance, many products are much cheaper just across the border in the US but the average Canadian can't get those prices north of the border even though 'free trade' is in place).

Large corporations have been tasked with undertaking mega-projects, to give credit where credit is due. For instance, Canada's interior was opened by the Hudson's Bay Company, India was opened to trade by the East India Co., Canada's west was opened up by the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. These are also examples of imperialism against aboriginal societies. But megaprojects, or specialty projects, are where large corporations can be helpful.

My general conclusion is that our society can do well without large corporations, except when megaprojects are needed. I would tax the daylights out of the rest, and the wealthy. I would also burden commercial activity with stringent rules, such as requiring new products to be not harmful to the environment, worker rights & benefits, etc., before their products or services are rolled out. The influence of wealth in funding political corruption and fake science research has done untold damage to Western society.

How current governments can preach, and practice, tax cuts to corporations and the rich, whilst being literally bankrupt, is beyond reason.

Another thing I would do is get rid of the central banking model that requires growth in the economy to be funded by debt. Governments should print their own currency to the level of financing growth in the economy, and only borrow from the central bank when infrastructure projects require it. Central banks should just be used to fund commercial banks.

The focus of the system should be to make people independent as possible, and perhaps closer to the land. Small business and the middle class, and the poor, should be facilitated to conduct the activities they desire. Governments can probably provide free services, such as healthcare, dental, etc., to facilitate a 'just' society. People don't need to be 'socially engineered' or monetized as a commercial target, they need tech to live comfortably and be able to pursue humanistic goals, preferably and hopefully not driven by greed or materialism.

See, all of this sounds great, and potentially doable on paper, but humanity just isn't mature/evolved enough yet for this to work on any kind of macro-scale.

Still, there are aspects of Japanese and some Europe that the world should take notes from, America especially.

Hi Indigris, really, nothing that I am suggesting is impractical, even under the current circumstances. Here's what it would take:

1) High taxes on high income, whether corporate or personal. How's about 75% on income over a certain level. Special projects income could be exempted.

2) Capital tax on assets. In the case of corporations, the capital tax could be alleviated if they employ a certain level of employees for a given level of assets.

3) Low taxes for the lower income groups.

4) Federal governments print their own money. Central banks only finance commercial banks. In the US, disband the federal reserve system.

5) Government programs pay for universal health care, universal free education, free dental care, subsidized housing where needed, etc. Many countries already have much or all of this. For instance Canada has universal healthcare and free primary/secondary education.

6). Government incentives should support independent living, alternative medicine, organic food production, etc. Also, the tech for independent living should have incentives.

8). Heavy regulation for environmental concerns, particularly waste management and pollution.

9) Workers rights and benefits should be strictly regulated.

None of these suggestions are unattainable, IMHO.

[DeDukshyn]

Really, if we are talking about the collective good for society, the group that creates the most innovation, jobs and wealth is the middle class. The middle class has been ground down in the industrialized world by these 'free trade' deals that aren't really free and just make it easy for the largest corporations to bypass local laws and tariffs (for instance, many products are much cheaper just across the border in the US but the average Canadian can't get those prices north of the border even though 'free trade' is in place).

Large corporations have been tasked with undertaking mega-projects, to give credit where credit is due. For instance, Canada's interior was opened by the Hudson's Bay Company, India was opened to trade by the East India Co., Canada's west was opened up by the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. These are also examples of imperialism against aboriginal societies. But megaprojects, or specialty projects, are where large corporations can be helpful.

My general conclusion is that our society can do well without large corporations, except when megaprojects are needed. I would tax the daylights out of the rest, and the wealthy. I would also burden commercial activity with stringent rules, such as requiring new products to be not harmful to the environment, worker rights & benefits, etc., before their products or services are rolled out. The influence of wealth in funding political corruption and fake science research has done untold damage to Western society.

How current governments can preach, and practice, tax cuts to corporations and the rich, whilst being literally bankrupt, is beyond reason.

Another thing I would do is get rid of the central banking model that requires growth in the economy to be funded by debt. Governments should print their own currency to the level of financing growth in the economy, and only borrow from the central bank when infrastructure projects require it. Central banks should just be used to fund commercial banks.

The focus of the system should be to make people independent as possible, and perhaps closer to the land. Small business and the middle class, and the poor, should be facilitated to conduct the activities they desire. Governments can probably provide free services, such as healthcare, dental, etc., to facilitate a 'just' society. People don't need to be 'socially engineered' or monetized as a commercial target, they need tech to live comfortably and be able to pursue humanistic goals, preferably and hopefully not driven by greed or materialism.

See, all of this sounds great, and potentially doable on paper, but humanity just isn't mature/evolved enough yet for this to work on any kind of macro-scale.

Still, there are aspects of Japanese and some Europe that the world should take notes from, America especially.

Hi Indigris, really, nothing that I am suggesting is impractical, even under the current circumstances. Here's what it would take:

1) High taxes on high income, whether corporate or personal. How's about 75% on income over a certain level. Special projects income could be exempted.

2) Capital tax on assets. In the case of corporations, the capital tax could be alleviated if they employ a certain level of employees for a given level of assets.

3) Low taxes for the lower income groups.

4) Federal governments print their own money. Central banks only finance commercial banks. In the US, disband the federal reserve system.

5) Government programs pay for universal health care, universal free education, free dental care, subsidized housing where needed, etc. Many countries already have much or all of this. For instance Canada has universal healthcare and free primary/secondary education.

6). Government incentives should support independent living, alternative medicine, organic food production, etc. Also, the tech for independent living should have incentives.

8). Heavy regulation for environmental concerns, particularly waste management and pollution.

9) Workers rights and benefits should be strictly regulated.

None of these suggestions are unattainable, IMHO.

The 1% all have good friends in government and the power and money to be able to plant them there, that ensures they'll never have a 75% tax at any level of profit. Haven't you noticed that Presidents and Prime ministers (usually of the right wing locale) are always giving their rich friends tax breaks?

It's detrimental to a country to not tax the rich heavily while trying to tax the **** out of the poor, which is what capitalists always seem to want (even though when they cry like babies that minimum wage has to be adjusted for inflation and cost of living increases, they are the ones that create the situation .

(I live in Alberta ... if you listen quietly at night you can hear all the redneck conservatives whimpering and whining that we have to make minimum wage adjustments, even though the cost of live here has skyrocketd since the oil boom, and minimum wage is well below the poverty level, just now are wages even moving at all to correct)- the OPs analysis is 100% backwards due to massive shortsightedness - Dennis explained it well).

If it's detrimental to the job they are supposed to be doing (back to politician's giving tax breaks to the super rich), that we as taxpayers pay them to do, we know they are being paid off by other interests. Its that simple. How to change this? It would take some brave politicians, with massive testicles and a motivation to not by bought.

Politicians with huge testicles to do the right thing? Almost non-existent.
Politicians that can't be bought? Almost non-existent.

So while possible, probability is slim to none, and Slim's out of town ...



Disclaimer: "Huge Testicles" = "the willpower, ability and motivation to 100% follow through with the completion of a very difficult task despite strong opposition". Applies to both men and women.

[TargeT]

$15 min wage is insane.. what inflation rate will that cause; double digits surely..

[DeDukshyn]

$15 min wage is insane...

I'll give you that it does seem a bit high ... where I live the government slowly rolled out the raise to $15CAD which I feel is appropriate, and considering the cost of living is waaay ahead of wages here (Cost of living can go up 50% before there's any mention of raising minimums which just creates poverty and strains social systems - higher wages tend to reduce these other costs, so there's that aspect as well).

But ... I do the conversion ... $15USD = $20CAD ... yeah that does seem a bit extreme ... $15CAD I think is the highest anywhere in Canada.

It depends on cost of living in New York as well, for a full picture. Every state will be different in that regard.

[Justplain]

Dedukshyn, I have no doubt that the probability of achieving a 75% tax rate on the wealthy would seem very low. This would take a consciousness shift of almost everyone involved. There have been high level politicians along the way who have appeared to be close on this, however their own parties sabotaged them along the way, and if they actually get into power, the deep state finds other ways to silence them. Bernie Sanders being the most recent example of the former. JFK being an example of the latter.

Another example is Henry Wallace, the US vice president to FDR from 1940-44. He was a highly spiritual and very clever man. He was undermined as VP at the 1944 democratic party convention where the deep state cronies in the party cajoled the convention delegates to back Truman. Truman was a uneducated neophyte senator, also a hi-level mason, who became a yes man for the deep state. Wallace wanted to have universal health care and further agrarian reform. Him being a theosophist, its very unlikely that he, as president after FDR died (everyone knew FDR was near the end) would have permitted the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan when the war was already won. Also, Wallace also wouldn't have been suckered into permitting the creation of the cia nor the nsa. Also, the UFO file would likely have been disclosed since another FDR protégé, secretary of defence Forrestal, wanted to do that. Wallace and Forrestal were both fired by Truman and Forrestal was later murdered to silence him on the UFO file.

So, there have been close calls, just no cigar. Yet.

[Dennis Leahy]

[QUOTE]More of the same, and New York takes one step closer to Venezuela status. ...... those that follow the road to Caracas...

The road to Caracas... has a hell of a lot of CIA footprints. Are you unaware of the siege that Venezuela is under - siege by DEEP STATE and GLOBALISTS?

Are you aware of a former star of international, globalist-level capitalism, John Perkins? John wrote Confessions of an Economic Hitman. John explains* how modern war is waged. Nefarious elements of the fascist US government (the CIA - the eyes, ears, and trigger fingers of the Shadow Government/Deep State) are fomenting yet another fake revolution in South America, this time in Venezuela. Research the phrase, 'Banana Republic', the original meaning.

It isn't Maduro. The same nefarious, globalist-deep state elements including the CIA, had already shoved a dagger into Venezuela under Chavez. (Maybe they even murdered Chavez.) There are several reasons that the globalists are going to take over Venezuela: the largest reserve of oil of any nation, and because it is socialist.

Socialist nations cannot be allowed to be left alone, unmolested. The rich and powerful 13 or 33 or whatever the hell the number is at the top owners/controllers/rulers/hoarders of planet Earth are NOT going to allow a nation to operate under the concept of sharing (a tenet of socialism.) Sharing is the antithesis of their globalist capitalist exclusive empires.

I suspect that the top tier owners of planet Earth rarely bother with the day-to-day running of the planet, but that each and every attempt anywhere on Earth at having a communist or socialist nation does get their attention, their scowls, their disapproval, their nod calling for action. I doubt there is even the slightest debate between these old banking money ruling family globalists. It's a given: the world must not be allowed to see a nation run by its citizens, for its citizens. They know that it can't be unseen, that then everyone would want that. Sharing. Sharing is lovely for almost all of us on Earth, but not them. It is the most frightening concept in the world to them. They know that it would only be a matter of time before 7.9 billion people would demand that the uber-wealthy share the 1/2 of the world's wealth that they have accumulated. Those people also know they wouldn't really just be losing "half the world's wealth", because they actually control far more than half and their big half includes the most desirable land on Earth. I think they know they will lose it all, even the possibility that all nations would print their own money, ending the greatest scam in history.

Sharing (socialism) isn't evil. However, every single powerful, rich, globalist is a capitalist.

The globalists and their mass media/propaganda department want you and I to blame Venezuela's woes on socialism, rather than blaming the CIA's deliberate actions to try to create a revolution. The corporate MSM, and their globalist corporate owners, have presented a fairy-tale bullsh!t storm of disinformation surrounding all of the USA, INC.'s takeovers of nascent socialist countries and destruction of socialist (sharing) policy.

What's the opposite of "social?" Anti-social. What's the opposite of "sharing?" Greed.

The truth in a nutshell is that "sharing" is the scariest concept to a capitalist, because capitalism is the opposite of sharing. Communism would be 100% sharing and no societal hierarchy. Communism has actually never occurred in any nation, ever. Socialism is the foundation of society, and of families. Society. Social. It is social organization and a shared commons. Socialism is the normal structure of a family. Family members nurture one another, care for one another, share resources with one another. We don't charge our kids for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, or saddle them with the debt to pay for their diapers. (Capitalist Jesus could have made a killing selling all the loaves and fishes to the crowd of hungry people, but I guess Socialist Jesus showed up that day.)

Socialism...

Every example of tribal life includes socialism - it is the natural and normal way to organize society, around sharing. Have you heard about the story where one guy in a tribe declared that all of some critical resource was his and his alone? No, you didn't hear that story. The tribe would have laughed at him, or driven him away... or killed him. A society cannot thrive if one or a few members are more clever and trick the others into giving/allowing them to control the formerly shared resources. And really, that's all that capitalist empires are, the most clever tricksters and old family money.

The fact that you are sitting here today reading these words is because proto-humans or "cave men" banded together and survived together, not because of some rugged individual that went off on his own. We need one another - humans are social creatures. As a species, human babies are born helpless - that's a pretty powerful clue as to our vulnerability and need to nurture one another.

*(Here's a cartoon/graphic with edited snips of John Perkins interview voice, hitting the bullet points of what economic hitmen do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Dvt2EqXF4 Some variant of this, plus trump-imposed sanctions, is what Venezuela is going through.)

[Praxis]

Large corporations have been tasked with undertaking mega-projects, to give credit where credit is due. For instance, Canada's interior was opened by the Hudson's Bay Company, India was opened to trade by the East India Co., Canada's west was opened up by the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. These are also examples of imperialism against aboriginal societies. But megaprojects, or specialty projects, are where large corporations can be helpful.

My general conclusion is that our society can do well without large corporations, except when megaprojects are needed. I would tax the daylights out of the rest, and the wealthy. I would also burden commercial activity with stringent rules, such as requiring new products to be not harmful to the environment, worker rights & benefits, etc., before their products or services are rolled out. The influence of wealth in funding political corruption and fake science research has done untold damage to Western society.


Literally your examples of Corporation goodness are the Hudson Bay company and the East India Company.

That is like me saying the best advances in medicine came from Unit 731 so maybe we need large scale wars from time to time.

The East India company opened up India, but at what cost?

Did you know the caste system was brought back into modern usage by the British as a divide and conquer strategy?

You are making the same argument about East India Company that people make about the Mongols.

Sure trade was secure, and freedom of religion was a law(as long as your prayed for the Khan) but tell the Chinese(Song Dynasty) this was worth it.

Corporations are merely a technology(organization).
A side effect of them is diffusion of responsible for the actions of the Corp.
This is the problem. The fact that people that work for Palantir do not see themselves as the bad guys. THe fact that Gina Haspell doesnt see herself as evil for her work for the company.


and finally Carthage must be destroyed.

[Praxis]

$15 min wage is insane.. what inflation rate will that cause; double digits surely..

Target I do not think you understand inflation.

For your own edification I suggest you read Modern Money Mechanics produced by the Fed of Chicago(I know you are probably skeptical). http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf

Increases wages does not cause inflation.
Increasing money supply without corresponding increase in economic outpout(in a fiat system) is what causes inflation.

And finally, if you actually cared about inflation caused by wages if that was actually a cause for inflation, why do you not care about CEO wages?

[DeDukshyn]

$15 min wage is insane.. what inflation rate will that cause; double digits surely..

Target I do not think you understand inflation.

For your own edification I suggest you read Modern Money Mechanics produced by the Fed of Chicago(I know you are probably skeptical). http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf

Increases wages does not cause inflation.
Increasing money supply without corresponding increase in economic outpout(in a fiat system) is what causes inflation.

And finally, if you actually cared about inflation caused by wages if that was actually a cause for inflation, why do you not care about CEO wages?

I see fuel prices affecting inflation more than anything, and definitely far more than a minimum wage increase. The real Irony is that where I live, Most people want to see $150 per barrel oil, which raises the prices of all goods and services by a fair margin (everything has to be transported long distances these days) which skyrockets the cost of living to the point where minimum becomes wage is a sick joke and more people are relying on social assistance.

Then the "boom" crashes to a halt, the conservatives get voted out for creating the scenario, a left wing party gets in power, has to throw more money into social programs due to the situation, they also have to raise minimum wage, to compensate and bring the level back on par with cost of living.

Meanwhile, voters start to get angry and point fingers saying "See! Look what the Left wingers cost us! Vote them out!!" Then they get voted out, and the right wingers get voted back in and the cycle starts over. (actual scenario in my province of Alberta)

The sheer acts of bouncing from a polarized right policy to a polarized left policy is what creates inflation, if one looks at the bigger picture; people don't tend to ever look past their political alignments, which is sad. Welcome to the political machine and their armies of fanboys, a system that was designed to suck hard earned money out of the masses.

To fix the system, the polarization of political alignments needs to be dissolved, but politicians will never allow that because its how the create their "armies" whose sole purpose it is to "vote" and to demonize the opposition at any cost. It is the mechanism that allows the politicians to reap personal benefit from.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

They either raise prices of the goods and services to directly reflect the additional labor cost, or the owners take less in profits (if still profitable with goods and services at the same prices and absorbing the additional labor cost.) This is an example of capitalism, not socialism. Why did you even mention socialism? Artificial scarcity is one of the ugly pillars upon which capitalism stands, again, why tag socialism?

Minimum wages are absolutely in opposition to free market capitalism. What New York is doing is not free market capitalism. You should know better, Dennis, when the governor of New York is simultaneously calling for private property confiscation (https://nypost.com/2017/09/05/a-plea-to-democrats-to-back-anyone-but-de-blasio/). Next you'll blame that on capitalism too, won't you?

I will make an honest effort to explain this to you, and I hope you will honestly try to understand it.

http://www.gamingrebellion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/demandsupplycurve.jpg

This is a supply and demand curve. Let's use doughnuts as an example.

Doughnut companies would love if consumers paid $100 for every box of doughnuts. But if they set their prices that high, virtually no one will buy doughnuts, and they will make very little money despite setting a high price.

Consumers would love FREE DOUGHNUTS. But if manufacturers don't get paid for making doughnuts, they're not going to make doughnuts, and so despite the "give me free stuff" attitude of consumers, they will get no doughnuts.

Clearly, there has to be price somewhere in between, that consumers are willing to pay, and manufacturers are willing to work for. The point at which the maximum amount of doughnuts are sold/purchase, and the maximum amount of business is conducted, is the equilibrium point of the supply and demand curve. This is represented by the point where the two lines intersect in the graph above.

Labor is similar to doughnuts. Employers are paying for labor, so labor has a cost associated with it. Laborers aren't going to work for free, but neither are employers going to run themselves bankrupt trying to make burger-flippers into millionaires. So again, we have supply and demand at play even in the labor market.

When the government intervenes in the free market system, it is a form of socialism, and setting a minimum wage prevents the free market from naturally settling on an equilibrium point between what employers are willing to pay, and what laborers are willing to work for. The equilibrium is destroyed, no one can even know what labor should even be worth anymore because the free market has been disrupted by an artificial price floor imposed by the government, and New York's sorry economic situation is the kind of result you can expect from that, where you have to pay outrageous rent just to live in a broom closet, or can't afford to put gas in your car. Paris and London, or many other parts of Europe, are also great examples of this.


Have you ever noticed that when socialist states like Venezuela finally bottom out and fully collapse, their supermarkets are totally bare and aren't restocked? And yet you think CAPITALISM causes artificial scarcity???

For socialists to claim that capitalism impoverishes people in this way is a complete inversion of reality that I can only attribute to brainwashing. Countries with free markets and a healthy middle class don't suffer from a scarcity of goods and services. It's socialist countries that suffer from shortages of goods and services, because they have totally wrecked their markets by trying to artificially manipulate them with the stroke of a pen, and jamming up the natural way that free markets operate.



You have to have seen the charts showing worker wages (nearly a flat line) over the last few decades, compared to profits and executive salaries (a line going more than 45° up and to the right.) Do you not see a problem here?

Gutting the middle class, again, is what socialism does, for the reasons I just explained above. If you look at socialist countries, they have the exact same problem, except even worse!! The US has resisted these insane policies longer than most of the rest of the world, and that's why we haven't bottomed out as badly as they have yet. And God willing, we will reverse these policies and go back to levels of middle class prosperity like we saw in the 1950s, when communism wasn't glamorized.



The cost of goods and services HAS gone up to the worker-consumer, way up, but worker wages have been stagnant for decades, and the executive pay and bonuses have skyrocketed and profits have skyrocketed.

Dennis, look at what I posted in the OP. Restaurants are having to raise prices because of a socialist policy. The exact opposite of who you are in here trying to blame right now! Do you honestly not see how crazy that is? It is pure ideology.


Even if you were a sociopathic capitalist, you wouldn't want the worker class so broke that they cannot buy goods and services, right?

You mean like the people in Venezuela? That's sociopathic capitalism too, right? Explain that one to me.


A REAL livable working wage would probably be around $30/hr at today's cost of goods and services

Why not make it $1 million per hour as a minimum wage. That would solve all of our problems, wouldn't it?


Don't cry for capitalism. They won. The capitalists already won. It's very very near the end of the game of Monopoly

Marxists have been saying that for about 200 years now, and the only thing that has failed is a large number of Marxist economies. You have a very bad track record with this, you know.

I get it that a lot of people are filled with hatred towards the rich, and people who are better off in general. It seems the people who are filled with the most hatred towards the wealthy are upper middle class liberals, or even millionaires themselves. It's funny how that works. I personally don't care how much money someone else has as long as I have the same opportunity to open a business and achieve the same things fair and square. Most millionaires in America today are first generation, meaning they didn't inherit their wealth, they earned it. But they get hated on by Marxists who are still stuck in the class warfare mentality. If that's how you want to be, fine. I get it. But it's unhealthy, and it will ultimately destroy an economy if this class hatred gains political power.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Increasing the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour would only be bad because those at the top would not be willing to garnish their high salaries or, God forbid, cut profits for shareholders.

Small businesses like the restaurants being impacted here don't have shareholders. You spent your whole post complaining about your personal situation and how you can't deal with stress without gaining 40 pounds, but you didn't spend any time at all considering the plight of a small business owner who is not only responsible for supporting his own family, but everyone employed by his business as well.

The wealthiest people in this country are the ones who are pushing these socialist policies. The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, George Soros... all of these people throw their financial support behind socialism. Does it give you comfort that these are the people on your side?




Voice , one of the great things about those that follow the road to Caracas, and one that you must make sure to mention , is the unfailing talent of most of their members as self proclaimed Socialists to see their own system's faults ; and then , --- abracadabra ------- lay them at the feet of the job creators .That is , the ones of capital importance.

Yes, the people who employ us and give us paychecks are the evil ones, just like Karl Marx told us.

I know, I see this class warfare mentality all the time. Like I just said above, it is pure ideology. Most of the people spouting these talking points have never studied economics for even 5 minutes, and as usual in modern politics, it boils down to muh feelings.



The minimum wage should be higher than 15.00 per hour. Much higher. If you are a job creator and can't afford to pay your staff a liveable wage then you don't have a viable business.

That's why there are virtually no viable businesses in Venezuela right now, too.

No matter how strongly you hate people with more money than you, demanding a million dollars an hour is not going to actually improve anyone's situation. If you ever had to run your own business you might better understand the situation.






More of the same, and New York takes one step closer to Venezuela status. ...... those that follow the road to Caracas...

The road to Caracas... has a hell of a lot of CIA footprints. Are you unaware of the siege that Venezuela is under - siege by DEEP STATE and GLOBALISTS?

So why is it so hard to put 2 and 2 together and realize that the CIA and globalists are the ones pushing socialism, Dennis?


https://liberalsbackwardsthink.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/socialism.jpg

[TargeT]

Increases wages does not cause inflation.


There's more than one cause of inflation, "economics" rarely has a single causation to its phenomenon's.


From the perspectives of firms, an increase in the minimum wage would increase their costs of production. Also, not only will firms have to increase the wage of workers on the minimum wage, but if they seek to maintain wage differentials – they may need to increase wages of more qualified workers – earning just above the minimum wage.

In this case, a minimum wage could lead to firms passing wage rises onto the consumers in the form of higher prices. This will cause SRAS to shift to the left and higher inflation. Also, if higher minimum wages leads to an increase in consumer spending, it could cause a degree of demand-pull inflation as well.

In theory, a higher minimum wage could cause inflation for two reasons:

Higher spending by workers (demand pull inflation)
Higher costs for firms, leading to wage-push inflation.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11503/labour-markets/effect-of-minimum-wage-on-adas/


if this wasn't a HUGE increase, I won't be so worried

900,000 people in New York City will be earning the $15 an hour wage when it's fully implemented.... (https://www.thestreet.com/politics/new-york-state-rings-in-2019-with-minimum-wage-hike-14822054)

a 50% hike in the minimum wage of NYC ( over 2ish years it went up 5$) with an estimated 900,000 recipients (which is about 1/10th the population of NYC, and probably near 1/5th the work force).

I think this will not follow traditional models and wage driven price inflation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) is very likely.

[Praxis]

Increases wages does not cause inflation.


There's more than one cause of inflation, "economics" rarely has a single causation to its phenomenon's.


From the perspectives of firms, an increase in the minimum wage would increase their costs of production. Also, not only will firms have to increase the wage of workers on the minimum wage, but if they seek to maintain wage differentials – they may need to increase wages of more qualified workers – earning just above the minimum wage.

In this case, a minimum wage could lead to firms passing wage rises onto the consumers in the form of higher prices. This will cause SRAS to shift to the left and higher inflation. Also, if higher minimum wages leads to an increase in consumer spending, it could cause a degree of demand-pull inflation as well.

In theory, a higher minimum wage could cause inflation for two reasons:

Higher spending by workers (demand pull inflation)
Higher costs for firms, leading to wage-push inflation.

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11503/labour-markets/effect-of-minimum-wage-on-adas/


if this wasn't a HUGE increase, I won't be so worried

900,000 people in New York City will be earning the $15 an hour wage when it's fully implemented.... (https://www.thestreet.com/politics/new-york-state-rings-in-2019-with-minimum-wage-hike-14822054)

a 50% hike in the minimum wage of NYC ( over 2ish years it went up 5$) with an estimated 900,000 recipients (which is about 1/10th the population of NYC, and probably near 1/5th the work force).

I think this will not follow traditional models and wage driven price inflation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation) is very likely.

From that last link to WIKI
"Economists generally believe that the high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply.[9]" i.e. quantitative easing known as QE. Tell me Target. How much QE did the FED do in 2008-2009?

There you will find what causes inflation.

[TargeT]

How much QE did the FED do in 2008-2009?

There you will find what causes inflation.

that theory presupposes a known and controlled money supply, fractional reserve lending leads to a HUGE amount of "shadow money" that is almost impossible to track.

either way, I was speaking of a localized phenomenon (this 15$ an hour is only in NYC). and the QE from the fed is sorta apples to oranges... not just one crazy democratic city making questionable policy decisions.

[Satori]

$15 min wage is insane.. what inflation rate will that cause; double digits surely..

Target I do not think you understand inflation.

For your own edification I suggest you read Modern Money Mechanics produced by the Fed of Chicago(I know you are probably skeptical). http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf

Increases wages does not cause inflation.
Increasing money supply without corresponding increase in economic outpout(in a fiat system) is what causes inflation.

And finally, if you actually cared about inflation caused by wages if that was actually a cause for inflation, why do you not care about CEO wages?

"Increases wages does not cause inflation."

True, if and only if: 1) the money to pay the increase in wages comes from the existing money supply. To the extent that money is created (in the form of lending/borrowing) to pay the increase in wages, and we can debate the likelihood of that (but some employers will borrow hoping for the best), that is inflationary in the sense of an increase in the money supply which in turn drives prices up for goods and services; OR 2) even if there is no increase in the supply of money, there can be pure price inflation in certain sectors of the economy when "consumers" start buying goods and services due to the fattening in their wallets caused by pay increases. Merchants will raise prices when the demand for their goods and services increases, for whatever reason, if their is no corresponding increase in the supply, or there is an increase in the price or the cost, of the materials and such needed to provide the sought after goods and services for which their is a higher demand.

Labor is a cost of doing business, and economically speaking that cost is no different than the cost of materials, supplies, utilities, etc... All of which are also labor dependent.

An increase in the cost of any item of production of goods and services will increase the cost or price of the goods or services to the ultimate purchaser. And that has nothing to do with whether someone should be in business or not.

Further, income equality is a separate issue from monetary or price inflation.

It's all a spiraling circle, up or down or staying flat. Everything is connected and ripples are felt everywhere--whether intended or not. Whether good or bad. Much depends on where you happen to be in the social-economic strata at any given time. Some ripples raise the tide for all and lift all boats, other ripples raise the tide and lift the boats only for some, and sink boats for others.

Much also depends on many factors, such as who you are, who you know, good luck, bad luck, no luck at all, chance, intelligence, the actions of others, and the application of what you know to what you do with what you know.

[Praxis]

$15 min wage is insane.. what inflation rate will that cause; double digits surely..

Target I do not think you understand inflation.

For your own edification I suggest you read Modern Money Mechanics produced by the Fed of Chicago(I know you are probably skeptical). http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf

Increases wages does not cause inflation.
Increasing money supply without corresponding increase in economic outpout(in a fiat system) is what causes inflation.

And finally, if you actually cared about inflation caused by wages if that was actually a cause for inflation, why do you not care about CEO wages?

"Increases wages does not cause inflation."

True, if and only if: 1) the money to pay the increase in wages comes from the existing money supply. To the extent that money is created (in the form of lending/borrowing) to pay the increase in wages, and we can debate the likelihood of that (but some employers will borrow hoping for the best), that is inflationary in the sense of an increase in the money supply which in turn drives prices up for goods and services; OR 2) even if there is no increase in the supply of money, there can be pure price inflation in certain sectors of the economy when "consumers" start buying goods and services due to the fattening in their wallets caused by pay increases. Merchants will raise prices when the demand for their goods and services increases, for whatever reason, if their is no corresponding increase in the supply, or there is an increase in the price or the cost, of the materials and such needed to provide the sought after goods and services for which their is a higher demand.

Labor is a cost of doing business, and economically speaking that cost is no different than the cost of materials, supplies, utilities, etc... All of which are also labor dependent.

An increase in the cost of any item of production of goods and services will increase the cost or price of the goods or services to the ultimate purchaser. And that has nothing to do with whether someone should be in business or not.

Further, income equality is a separate issue from monetary or price inflation.

It's all a spiraling circle, up or down or staying flat. Everything is connected and ripples are felt everywhere--whether intended or not. Whether good or bad. Much depends on where you happen to be in the social-economic strata at any given time. Some ripples raise the tide for all and lift all boats, other ripples raise the tide and lift the boats only for some, and sink boats for others.

Much also depends on many factors, such as who you are, who you know, good luck, bad luck, no luck at all, chance, intelligence, the actions of others, and the application of what you know to what you do with what you know.

You are confusing the correspondent raise in price with the aim of keeping better than past profit margin, as is the will of all corporate beings.

Rule of Acquisition #95: Expand or die.

That is not inflation, that is corporate greed trying to maintain its marketshare and profits.

The reason they need to make and then change minimum wages is because of what I am talking about Target that is what you dont get.

Imagine people making 8.25 an hour in 1913 dollars. That would be amazing right. This shows that addressing a living wage is meaningless in a Federal Reserve System.
But I think what many are trying to point out is: You deserve a decent salary for a days work. And since most people dont want to address Fed issue they go for Minimum.

[Bubu]

$15 min wage is insane.. what inflation rate will that cause; double digits surely..

Target I do not think you understand inflation.

For your own edification I suggest you read Modern Money Mechanics produced by the Fed of Chicago(I know you are probably skeptical). http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf

Increases wages does not cause inflation.
Increasing money supply without corresponding increase in economic outpout(in a fiat system) is what causes inflation.

And finally, if you actually cared about inflation caused by wages if that was actually a cause for inflation, why do you not care about CEO wages?

well yes, its as simple as "law of supply and demand".

Inflation: "In economics, inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.[1][2][3][4] When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services; consequently, inflation reflects a reduction in the purchasing power per unit of money"

[TargeT]

You are confusing the correspondent raise in price with the aim of keeping better than past profit margin, as is the will of all corporate beings........

That is not inflation,

yea, seems like inflation to me...... less purchasing power etc....

which is all the consumer cares about...

if i call it "less purchasing power" you'll agree? the term isn't important.... the "less purchasing power" is.

[Bubu]

wage earner will rejoice with increase minimum wage, businesses including small ones will despise it. we can debate all day about inflation or no inflation and it will not solve the problem of the masses. The increase in wages will simply be pass on to price increase. some will benefit some will be disadvantage. The thing to do is to increase the amount of products from the grass roots not from multinationals. see their efforts are directed to poisoning the land for less food. Dumbing the people for less ingenuity. preventing people from using natural resources and so on. The simple strategy is for them to control everything that we need. Inflation is a mere nuisance a diversionary tactic.

[DeDukshyn]

You are confusing the correspondent raise in price with the aim of keeping better than past profit margin, as is the will of all corporate beings........

That is not inflation,

yea, seems like inflation to me...... less purchasing power etc....

which is all the consumer cares about...

if i call it "less purchasing power" you'll agree? the term isn't important.... the "less purchasing power" is.

I generalize it a bit like you as well ... any phenomenon that causes my purchasing power for means of survival / living to go down, I feel fair to call "Inflation". Although I do know there is a very specific definition for it ... "get your communication across" vs "trying to be 100% technically accurate" -- its a balancing act.

That said, I do think that wage increases are by far not the most prominent cause, and does work to stimulate local economy, which is the "good" side of inflation. Fair arguments on both sides, i'd say. At the end of the day it doesn't matter much because someone is always getting screwed somewhere ...

[Dennis Leahy]

...The wealthiest people in this country are the ones who are pushing these socialist policies. The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, George Soros... all of these people throw their financial support behind socialism. Does it give you comfort that these are the people on your side?
Comfort? It would give me great joy if your list of miscreants all pooled their resources with the people. They would actually qualify as philanthropists instead of several of the heads of the hydra, which they are. God, I wish I could write a sentence like you did. Our favorite Empire, the Rothschild Banking Uberlords - that's like $50 trillion, right? Yippieeeee! Can't wait, watching my mailbox.

Again, let's get back to some semblance of the concepts we are discussing. Would you be ok with setting aside the words "capitalism" and "socialism" and using "owning" and "sharing" instead? I don't read mainstream propaganda and anything that echoes the voices of the nefarious overlords of planet Earth isn't going to hold my attention. I have already given this too much attention. My message to you is you are grossly misusing the word socialism as a scapegoat pejorative, you have provided numerous examples of misuse of the word/concept, and are ineffectively communicating the glories and wonders and humanity saving potential of unfettered capitalism.


...

Yes, the people who employ us and give us paychecks are the evil ones, just like Karl Marx told us.
...

No matter how strongly you hate people with more money than you...

...

So why is it so hard to put 2 and 2 together and realize that the CIA and globalists are the ones pushing socialism, Dennis?


https://liberalsbackwardsthink.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/socialism.jpg

Your arguments lack any substance.

First, you have to actually know what the word socialism means. Then you might be able to spot who promotes it and who does not. I don't want to have a "meme poster war" with you, but those images are all true - if substituting the word "capitalism" for socialism. The rustbelt crumbing city? US capitalists moved most manufacturing operations - and all jobs that could be exported - to third-world countries. This image is a powerful indictment against capitalism. The next image looks like a sh!tty field hospital in some war-torn country that the globalists-capitalists have attacked to sack and pillage. The next image is what happens every time a hurricane is predicted to make landfall in the southeastern seaboard of the US. The scarcity training and hording behavior are results of capitalism. The final image, the supposed mansion of a member of the USA, INC. Congress, is accurate, though the caption is hilarious once you realize that insider trading within the capitalist system - that they made legal for themselves - is how these miscreants (EVERY one of whom is a capitalist) all got rich. So you've done a seriously poor job of defending your thesis by meme.

"Socialiam" and "communism" have simply become frustrated pejoratives. The most hilarious one had to be when the republican-corporatist-militarist-zionist-globalist duopoly faction started calling barack obama a socialist! barack obama is and always was a democrat-corporatist-militarist-zionist-globalist duopoly team member. The republican-corporatist-militarist-zionist-globalist duopoly faction couldn't think of what to say to badmouth their democrat-corporatist-militarist-zionist-globalist duopoly "opponent" {wink, wink} without pointing out the obvious (both are aligned with and controlled by the same group of overlords), so they called him a "socialist!" hahahahahaha

Here, try it yourself, it's fun:

(fill-in the blank!) "I don't like the following US politician, ______________, so obviously they are socialist."

(this one is extra fun, extra full of irony) "In a world run by capitalists, some bad thing happened, ______________, and so that was because of socialism."

It's just like the US duopoly blue team, the democrats, with their, "Putin did it!" meme.

We just sort of need to get a grip on definitions when discussing concepts like "socialism" and "capitalism", and not just emit emotions and programming. All of us are products of our programming.

[Dennis Leahy]

...When the government intervenes in the free market system, it is a form of socialism...
If you define socialism so loosely as anything that impedes capitalism, then your definition is so broad as to be meaningless.

...

Don't assume I'm Marxist. I'm not. I also wouldn't qualify as any existing Socialist organization's adherent. There are many billions of transactions that occur within the capitalist system that I'm fine with. If I had to give an elevator speech about how I'd like to see the current economic paradigm change, it would introduce the idea of an economy where goods and services for human needs would all be done non-profit, and all goods and services for human desires could be capitalist (for-profit) ventures (corporations, worker-owned cooperative businesses, partnerships, sole proprietorships), with stipulations: heavily regulated for pollution and human exploitation.

The phrasing "hatred of the rich" sounds like something I'd expect from their thinktanks, to cover up for our hatred of the crimes and legalized crimes that were committed to gain that wealth. Human carnage and exploitation, environmental toxification, gaming the system and gaining control of the system and rigging the system and gaming the system even harder, and skimming from every one of our transactions, and massive theft of resources, and massive theft of land... all that it took to make the uber-wealthy wealthy far beyond the comprehension of mere mortals like you and me. There is a large pile, a mountain, of corpses beneath their feet. We can stand back in awe of their cleverness, and applaud as they continue to own and control a greater and greater portion of the world. I think I read that 8 people now kinda sorta own half the world's wealth. You don't have to be an environmentalist or respect humans - maybe you could even be an economist - to figure out that the bigger picture of balance is greatly upset by the "undue influence" of a tablefull of people owning half the planet's wealth. Hate em? No, and I'm not jealous and don't covet a lifestyle or way of being not rooted in compassion. I know what being rich really means, to be bathed in love and to emit love and compassion. I'm not greedy, so I don't consider greed an accomplishment.

The entire US economy is capitalist. Every lawmaker (US Congressperson) is a capitalist. A report from Princeton/Northwestern showed that US citizens have zero influence on laws and policy. Zero. So, everything within the US economy is, and was, capitalist, completely controlled by capitalists. You don't get to pretend it's socialist when you don't like what the capitalists did. As a spokesman for capitalism, you can't go popping champagne corks about how great capitalism is while it is raking in record profits (and blind to anything else), and scream, "Yay capitalism!", and then when any of those predictable consequences from lowest-possible-wages highest-possible-pollution highest-possible-profit capitalism show the human and environmental cost - in addition to the economic problems - scream, "Boo socialism!"

It's not a game, and no, it's not a science. It's humans, non-human life forms, and the planet. That's my milieu, not theoretical economic models, and I'm not a proper spokesman for Socialism, so I'll end my participation here.

[snoman]

the free market.. the economy.. or the working poor
it all depends on who you feel you need to protect more
you can argue about capitalism and socialism and fail to understand that fear of inflation demands paying the minimum.. always.

so, if you are honest AVFTM, you have no time for empathy for the wage slave.. it gets in the way of opinionating on how much we deserve to live on.

I asked you if you are existing on minimum wage.. let's start there.

[DeDukshyn]

...When the government intervenes in the free market system, it is a form of socialism...
If you define socialism so loosely as anything that impedes capitalism, then your definition is so broad as to be meaningless.

...

Don't assume I'm Marxist. I'm not. I also wouldn't qualify as any existing Socialist organization's adherent. There are many billions of transactions that occur within the capitalist system that I'm fine with. If I had to give an elevator speech about how I'd like to see the current economic paradigm change, it would introduce the idea of an economy where goods and services for human needs would all be done non-profit, and all goods and services for human desires could be capitalist (for-profit) ventures (corporations, worker-owned cooperative businesses, partnerships, sole proprietorships), with stipulations: heavily regulated for pollution and human exploitation.

The phrasing "hatred of the rich" sounds like something I'd expect from their thinktanks, to cover up for our hatred of the crimes and legalized crimes that were committed to gain that wealth. Human carnage and exploitation, environmental toxification, gaming the system and gaining control of the system and rigging the system and gaming the system even harder, and skimming from every one of our transactions, and massive theft of resources, and massive theft of land... all that it took to make the uber-wealthy wealthy far beyond the comprehension of mere mortals like you and me. There is a large pile, a mountain, of corpses beneath their feet. We can stand back in awe of their cleverness, and applaud as they continue to own and control a greater and greater portion of the world. I think I read that 8 people now kinda sorta own half the world's wealth. You don't have to be an environmentalist or respect humans - maybe you could even be an economist - to figure out that the bigger picture of balance is greatly upset by the "undue influence" of a tablefull of people owning half the planet's wealth. Hate em? No, and I'm not jealous and don't covet a lifestyle or way of being not rooted in compassion. I know what being rich really means, to be bathed in love and to emit love and compassion. I'm not greedy, so I don't consider greed an accomplishment.

The entire US economy is capitalist. Every lawmaker (US Congressperson) is a capitalist. A report from Princeton/Northwestern showed that US citizens have zero influence on laws and policy. Zero. So, everything within the US economy is, and was, capitalist, completely controlled by capitalists. You don't get to pretend it's socialist when you don't like what the capitalists did. As a spokesman for capitalism, you can't go popping champagne corks about how great capitalism is while it is raking in record profits (and blind to anything else), and scream, "Yay capitalism!", and then when any of those predictable consequences from lowest-possible-wages highest-possible-pollution highest-possible-profit capitalism show the human and environmental cost - in addition to the economic problems - scream, "Boo socialism!"

It's not a game, and no, it's not a science. It's humans, non-human life forms, and the planet. That's my milieu, not theoretical economic models, and I'm not a proper spokesman for Socialism, so I'll end my participation here.

Its always a complete waste of time trying to have a reasonable conversation or a debate with an extremist. He has proved that to almost everyone on this forum by now, and I for one have no idea how such an extremist has been allowed to promote his views here as he has.

It's not the articles he posts up, its the way he attacks and gaslights any member who he thinks even "might" be trying to provide an different perspective, by implying that they automatically are a "socialist commie" because they don't support his extremist view 100% Is this what you are encountering too Dennis?

Due to this extremism its very obvious that he cannot have a reasonable discussion with anyone except those that support his extremist views - and whats the point of that?

Any person with more than one perspective seem to be targets of his projecting this "socialist commie" persona onto, then he attacks the concept of a "socialist commie" as a round-about way of attacking the individual and gaslighting them after all they did was try to have a reasonable conversation on varying perspectives.

I know several members here have already added him to their ignore list, and again what I don't understand is how Avalon allows him to not just promote his extremist views, but allows him to attack any member in the way I describe without ever offering anything to a reasonable discussion. All he does is preach, project and attack. There's literally nothing more than that.

How long will this be allowed to continue on an otherwise good forum?

[DeDukshyn]

...

"Socialiam" and "communism" have simply become frustrated pejoratives. The most hilarious one had to be when the republican-corporatist-militarist-zionist-globalist duopoly faction started calling barack obama a socialist! barack obama is and always was a democrat-corporatist-militarist-zionist-globalist duopoly team member. The republican-corporatist-militarist-zionist-globalist duopoly faction couldn't think of what to say to badmouth their democrat-corporatist-militarist-zionist-globalist duopoly "opponent" {wink, wink} without pointing out the obvious (both are aligned with and controlled by the same group of overlords), so they called him a "socialist!" hahahahahaha

Here, try it yourself, it's fun:

(fill-in the blank!) "I don't like the following US politician, ______________, so obviously they are socialist."

(this one is extra fun, extra full of irony) "In a world run by capitalists, some bad thing happened, ______________, and so that was because of socialism."

...


I must have missed this post somehow ... Dennis that is Hilarious! But so appropriate.