DougH

Care to anwser my very simple question Quade? Or does it lack enough wiggle room for you. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

1, 2 are all medium to long term to implement. In the short term you only have unemployed undereducated, youth, and seniors. Realistically there is allways going be a group of people that are a good match for low skill lower pay jobs. Highschool kids that need their first jobs, seniors that didn't put away for retirement and need to cover the shortage between living expenses and the SS payments, and people that for what ever reason lack skills and education. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Context is an amazing thing huh Quade? Very simple question to anwser. You can anwser straight forward, or twist your response. The way some one chooses to anwser a question speaks as much about their motive as what they choose to say. Was the officers conduct acceptable? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

so you don't think that checkout example is correct? Your checkout example is flawed. not my example - someone else presented it as a critique... The owner of the original example is irrelevant, a majority of your commentary and claims involving the example are incorrect and your arguments have some very big inherent logical flaws. The impact of price floors and ceilings on markets is far some loose theory, it is well supported economic theory. You are being evasive! I think one of my original questions was for you to actually support your matter of fact statement that to fix our situation we need adjust the "value" of labor versus the "value" of capital. Actually my first question was for you to quantify the impact of your plan to drain the rich with higher taxes as a solution to this deficit problem we face. My main point is that you make simple statements such as tax the rich or raise the minimum wage, with no real idea of the impact or the result. If you want to claim that raising taxes on the rich will solve the problem that is a hollow statement with a lot of hot air behind it unless you can quantify the impact of such a claim. It takes a little more effort to actual do some homework in order to gain some basic understanding about what you are claiming!! Wooooooooosh goes the hot air! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

so you don't think that checkout example is correct? Your checkout example is flawed. You fail to take into account many of the impacts that price floors have on a market, the big one being supply and demand imbalance. The problem is that the people working in the grocery store checkout line worked there because they had a low level of skills or other characteristics that made them a good match for the wage that the employer was willing to pay, and what they were willing to accept as wages. Packing groccery bags is a good job for many people, for example our youth as part time jobs. They don't have the skills to command a 25 dollar an hour job doing something else. But they have good work ethic, can pack grocceries well enough. They get a job, and they get spending money that they can spend, which is good for the economy. When you change the value of that worker, by making the minimum wage 20 dollars an hour, the employer responds by cutting employment, investing capital in ways that increase productivity of remaining workers, they automate, and they move jobs over seas. They don't do this because they are evil, they do this because you have forced the price of the wages above the equilibrium point where the wage matched the skill set, the amount of workers available, and the wage above the level that workers were willing to work for. In the short term the three fired groccery workers don't find another job easily. The highschool students will eventually go to college and learn the skills that put them into a different labor pool. But they stay unemployed until they get through college. That isn't good for the economy, they could have had a part time job for a few years that would have allowed them to be a part of the job maket earning money which allowed them to make purchases. The seniors are shit out of luck. They don't have the time to build new skills to put themselves into another labor pool. Others end up in the social net because they have no earnings, instead of low earnings. Markets don't work well when you arbitarily mess with price points. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I read this title, and I thought it said Skydiving "SAVINGS". I laughed to myself and thought good luck with that! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

So a job that was great for young kids, seniors, and those without a higher level of education is bad. Maybe you are right, we should have the people who filled those positions unemployed. Or we could force employers to pay them 50k a year even though their skills a minimal. That grows the economy for sure, and will make employers hire like crazy. Win win, we can have 25 dollar big macs at McDonalds. You do realize that what you are claiming about automation is now completely contrary about your statement earlier about needing to reduce the value of capital. Youy have not pointed out a single thing. You have made some claims that you haven't supported, that any one with a basic grasp on economics would dispute. This conversation is fruitless. You talk a big game but you have no idea what you are talking about. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Shouldn't you be focusing more on your little Eurozone debt crisis, and less about private gun ownership in the US. I don't know about guns in Europe but here in the US they are inanimate objects. That means I can be 100% sure that my legal fire arm will never shoot an officer at a traffic stop. Cops have to enforce the law, the law gives me the right to carry a concealed fire arm, if they can't follow and enforce all laws than they should find a new line of work. 99% of cops are intelligent and good at their job, this would have been a non issue if this officer was one of that 99%. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

so productivity increased fourfold for a small increase in wages... (billvon will be here soon telling us that it is in fact the chinese labourer that has benefited - but i can't see how) That means three other cashiers aren't being employed. Same reason why companies try to automate when labor expense get too high. You don't have a firm grasp on the economic concepts or the basic math. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

+1. I really like how every one on this site fights for the conservatives or liberals as if their elected officials are on their "team". Democrats, republican, doesn't matter 99% of them who get elected don't represent the average citizen, they have fucked us for decades, and will continue to do so. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Castle Doctrine. Not a bad law in my book, protects every day citizens from over zelous prosecutors and keeps work away from defense attorneys. Win Win! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

in a 'capitalist market economy' the rich will build up their financial position until there isn't enough money for the general populace to live on (forcing them to borrow) and the system crashes. basic stuff... I like how you are bouncing around. We started with you proposing that a tax on the "rich" would take a sizable chunk out of the deficit. I showed you based on the 2006 census data that a 100% tax on people over 250K wouldn't get us there. I still haven't seen any actual numbers from you about how you would propose to structure a tax increase that will fix this problem. Then you bounced on to the estate tax, another thing that wouldn't even put a dent in the deficit. Then you bounced around to some pie in the sky statement about rebalancing the "value" of wages and capital. I asked you to back that up, but you can't. Now you are finally on moving from capitalism to some other economic model. Comic gold! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Not in a capitalist market economy it doesn't. Price floors increase the supply of an item and decrease the demand. This is basic economic 101 stuff. If your going to claim things that are contrary to the generally accepted fundamentals to the way markets work then you should develop your ideas and support your points. You are making claims that you can not support, and that you really don't understand. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

increase the value of labour by increasing the minimum wage. lower the value of capital (making money out of money) by taxing it effectively... Do you think you can actually develop that idea your pushing beyond one sentance. Here let me let you get started: A sizable raise in the minimum rase will do what to the demand for worker? Producers will __________ the additional costs of production on to consumers. Raising the cost of capital will reduce __________ in the economy. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I like how we all can talk around here like adults. That is the great thing about speakers corner, we can go through the talking points without degrading to the level of middle schoolers. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Bump for Dreamdancer to post his economic models and projections for his simple solutions to complex problems.

Win win for the winery. They get the insurance payout, and the remaining bottles of that year just went up in value! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

In CT I have no legal obligation to inform the officer that I am carrying a gun. That varies state by state. Chances are if you are just pulled over for a speeding ticket they have no cause to search you, and if you have a poker face they wouldn't know and it would be a non issue. I haven't had it happen but I would follow the same thing I have done on previous traffic stops before I owned a gun and had a permit. Communicate all movements to the officer, be as non threatening and predictable as possible! Pull over to a safe spot for myself and the officer, windows all down, all dome lights on, car off, hand on the dash and wait for instructions. I would tell the officer I have my concealed weapon permit and gun in the car or on my person. I would then wait for the officer to make requests from there. Most departments have already been instructed on how to handle such event. Unfortunately just like any job there will be a few people who don't take the time to know the relevant laws or proper operating procedures. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

You must be right, his behavior was completely non threatening. Perfectly acceptable for authority figure to act that way. So anwser my question, you wouldn't be concerned at all of some one shouted the same things at you in an already tense situation. I am sure you would be just fine with that, no need for the IA guys, he used the proper tense! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

His goose would be cooked in CT. He had an obligation to do everything possible to flee the sceen, even if he had to jump out the second story window with his family in tow. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Replace the words after "should have done" with "had a refreshing beverage." No threat. By definition can't an active threat only refer to actions in the future? I mean, unless you think the cop has access to a time travel device. OK, so if you cut me off in traffic, and then I get out at the next light and tell you what a dumb son of a bitch you are for driving like that, and I tell that what "I should have done was pull out my glock 40 and pumped 10 rounds into your ass", you will be perfectly alright with that, and not feel threatened because I am talking in the past tense, and I don't have a time machine? Give me a break! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

If it was so simple you should have no problem putting together some modeling and projections that quantify all of the stuff that you claim. Please explain how you lower the value of capital while at the same time increasing the value of labor in a dollar denominated mostly open market economy. I won't go as far as saying you are making shit up, but I think it is hilarious that you simplify massively complex economic concepts into four or five line sentances. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

So what happens to family businesses when you start imposing a estate tax that kicks in under 1M. What happens to the people that work for them. You over simplify your positions because it wouldn't suit your argument to consider how really freaking complex all of this is! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I haven't suggested any because I know it isn't as simple you make it seem. You were making the claim the tax increases on the rich would get us a long way to a solution: Taxing the rich isn't going to do it. In the long run I think we are looking at a major reduction in medicare and social security, but only after the boomers are in the grave. They are to selfish to own up to the fact that their elected governments robbed social security, and that medicare was really political pandering that we couldn't afford in the long run. Tax rates on all income brackets is going to go up considerably. They are going to slash most deductions that currently benefit the middle class. You will see some sort of federal indirect tax like a value added tax that is going to impact all social classes. Defense spending is going to have to go down big time. The size of the government in general is going to have to shrink. It is going to suck for everyone, but that is what happens when you get used to a standard of living that was debt financed. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-29/return-of-estate-tax-looms-as-final-impediment-to-extending-bush-tax-cuts.html 34 Billion in revenue, a change that would impact 1% of estates. And this will put a sizable dent in the debt how? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P