Re: bush tax cut and small businesses
From: da pickle (jcpickels_at_nospamhotmail.com)
Date: 10/05/04
- Next message: Igor: "Re: bush tax cut and small businesses"
- Previous message: Tim Jowers: "Re: The US dollar may be in for a hard landing"
- In reply to: Robert Vienneau: "Re: bush tax cut and small businesses"
- Next in thread: Igor: "Re: bush tax cut and small businesses"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 18:16:26 -0500
"Robert Vienneau"
Robert ... I just realized that this is all being cross posted to sci.econ.
I wondered where you guys came from. I reviewed the posts above and I see
that the first one that is cross posted seems to have been by Roy on October
3 ... I repost it below ... I do not intend to continue to cross post to
sci.econ in any future post on this subject. This must have disrupted the
group "sci.econ" to simply "appear" in the middle of this thread in
rec.gambling.poker. I do not have sufficient expertise to engage a bunch of
"real" economists in this sort of discussion. I can hold my own with poker
players, but you guys are way beyond our little discussion. I do appreciate
your contributions, however. (even if I am not sure I understand all of it).
Thanks for your input.
This is the first post that I see that was cross posted. There were many
posts before this one, however, so there is not much continuity.
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:15:22 -0500, "da pickle"
<jcpickels@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>"William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:Kh%7d.1971$M05.1339@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "da pickle" <jcpickels@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:67KdnWARJvnD5f3cRVn-pw@www.bayou.com...
>> > "William Coleman" <ramashiva@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:8l_7d.1913$UP1.10@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > > "Ben Franklin" <bfranklin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:MPG.1bc9e94dce95e8798970c@digital-bear.dyndns.org...
>> > > > In article <rvien-20D2F8.11481603102004@news.dreamscape.com>,
>> > > > rvien@see.sig.com says...
>> > > > > Anyway, my main point was the supposed employment-decreasing
>> > > > > effect of higher wages lacks theoretical foundation.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Are you really saying that all things equal, that an increase in
>price
>> > > > does not lower demand? Some economist you are. LOL
>> > >
>> > > Ben, you are way out of your depth here. A change in price has no
>> effect
>> > on
>> > > demand. Demand is a function specifying the quantity demanded at
>> various
>> > > price points.
>> >
>> >
>> > A change in price does indeed have an effect on demand.
>>
>> No. I already explained this.
>>
>> > "Demand" is the
>> > quantity demanded at various prices.
>>
>> No. Demand is a function showing the quantity demanded at various price
>> points. Do you understand the difference between a function and a
>variable?
>> The demand curve is a graph showing that the variable quantity demanded
is
>a
>> function of the variable price. It is not correct to refer to the
>quantity
>> demanded as demand. It is correct to refer to the function as demand.
>When
>> you talk about demand increasing or decreasing, you are talking about the
>> demand curve shifting to the right or to the left. You are NOT talking
>> about the quantity demanded increasing or decreasing. The fact that you
>use
>> basic terminology incorrectly shows you have never had any formal
academic
>> training in economics.
>
>You are just "wrong," William. I know what a demand curve is. That is not
>the way you were using the word.
Yes, it was. William has been precise and accurate in his
terminology. You have not.
>I have plenty of formal academic training in
>economics.
I do not believe you.
>> > Increase price and "demand" will drop
>> > ... (we are being very simplistic here)
>>
>> Simplistic and wrong. Changes in price have no effect on demand, only
>> quantity demanded.
>
>You are making a distinction without merit. Changes in price affect
>"demand."
As William has explained, you are obviously in way over your head.
>> . (There are a lot of "assumptions"
>> > in the above, but the assumptions are good enough for the discussion
>here.
>> > We are ignoring a lot of important things, but what you said, William,
>> just
>> > does not make any sense.) (It is possible that you meant to say that
an
>> > increase in "cost" does not necessarily result in an increase in price
>...
>> > or something like that ... but that is not what you said.)
>>
>> Everything I said makes perfect sense, but you are too much of an
economic
>> illiterate to understand what I am saying.
>
>Sorry to disappoint you, William, but what you say in this instance makes
no
>sense whatsoever and is internally inconsistent.
Garbage.
>This is not like the "good" William.
But that is definitely like the bad pickle.
>> > > All things being equal, an increase in price will lower the quantity
>> > > demanded.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is exactly the opposite of what you said above.
>>
>> No, it is not. Please juxtapose the two contradictory statements. You
>> can't, because there are no contradictory statements.
>
>No need to "juxtapose" ... you already did that. They are still
>contradictory.
They are not. You are flat wrong. In fact, because you have already
been corrected on this point, you are now one of the lying liars Al
Franken exposed so hilariously.
>> > > However, when the minimum wage is increased, all things are not
>> > > equal.
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course all things are never equal ... it is a hypothetical. To
>> > complicate the question does not defeat the general premise that an
>> > arbitrary increase in the cost of labor will have a negative effect on
>> > employment and prices.
>>
>> Yes, everything being equal. You concede things are never equal. That
is
>> why simple diagrams of supply and demand curves cannot be used to analyze
>> the effect on employment of increasing minimum wage.
>
>Well, well ... interesting point. Inapposite, but interesting.
ROTFL!! You don't even realize when you have been shelled.
>> > > An increase in minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of
>> > > low-income workers, who have a high marginal propensity to consume.
>So
>> > they
>> > > spend the extra money almost immediately, increasing consumer demand,
>> > which
>> > > is the primary driving force of economic expansion. Much of this
>> spending
>> > > will occur at fast food outlets and convenience stores, who
frequently
>> > > employ minimum wage workers. These employers will find their
business
>> > > increased, thus their profits increased, and are unlikely to lay off
>> > > workers.
>> >
>> >
>> > Why not increase the minimum wage even more? And even more ... why
stop
>> at
>> > all? These guys will just spend it all and increase the economy.
>>
>> We are talking about small, incremental increases in the minimum wage.
>> Gradual increases of the minimum wage, introduced over a long period of
>time
>> are beneficial to the economy. The argument I have just made shows that
>> there is a feedback loop causing an increase in minimum wage to increase
>> employment. That is offset by the fact that an increase in the price of
>> labor will tend to decrease the quantity of labor demanded. These are
>> contradictory tendencies, do you understand that? There is no way to
>> conclude a priori which of these tendencies will be stronger. Only
>> empirical studies can tell us that. The empirical studies by Card and
>> Krueger suggest that the net effect of the two tendencies is a wash.
>
>Figures lie and ... oh well, there is nothing one can do to correct those
>who will not see.
Talk about not seeing, where is the real-world evidence to support
your theory? Blank out.
>> > You
>> > really need a simple economics book. I suggest "Economics in One
>Lesson."
>> > Henry Hazlett. He covers this myth as well as anyone.
>>
>> No. I do not need a simple economics book. You are the economic
>> illiterate, not me. All you conservatives think you are economic
>geniuses,
>> when you subscribe to simplistic economic theories that do not apply to
>the
>> real world. Your inability to use basic economic terminology correctly
is
>> revealing. I have the coursework equivalent of an MBA. I have taken
>> several graduate courses in economics, and several graduate courses in
>> accounting. Please tell me your academic background in economics and
>> accounting.
>
>I have an MBA ... I actually finished my degee.
But you took no economics?
>You really should read
>Hazlett's book. It is really a good book. You really should.
I have it, and it is a decent primer on some economic subjects, but
this is way beyond that level.
>> > > That is not the only thing that is not equal. The labor market
cannot
>> be
>> > > analyzed with simple supply and demand diagrams. The situation is
>much
>> > more
>> > > complicated than that.
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course the labor market is more complex than "that." Your saying
>that
>> > the market is complicated does not alter the "basic" LAW of supply and
>> > demand. Do get a copy of Hazlett's book. It is "simple."
>>
>> Simple and wrong. As I have tried to explain, the labor market is too
>> complex, involving feedback loops with the larger economy, to be analyzed
>> with simple diagrams of supply and demand curves. That is what your
whole
>> argument is based on. Your argument is simplistic and wrong. Actual
>> empirical data shows that your theories about minimum wage do not apply
to
>> the real world. That is the point of the empirical studies of Card and
>> Krueger.
>
>If you wish to "believe" Card and Krueger and "disbelieve" Hazlett and the
>thousands of economists that believe him, have at it, William. You seem to
>be floundering on this one, William.
??? ROTFL!! He has been shelling you, moron. Wake up and smell the
coffee.
-- Roy L
- Next message: Igor: "Re: bush tax cut and small businesses"
- Previous message: Tim Jowers: "Re: The US dollar may be in for a hard landing"
- In reply to: Robert Vienneau: "Re: bush tax cut and small businesses"
- Next in thread: Igor: "Re: bush tax cut and small businesses"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
