Economics 101: The economics of the left

From

Appeals court says SeaTac voters can decide on $15 minimum wage

Posted by Lewis Kamb

SeaTac1 voters will get the chance to decide whether the city should increase its minimum wage to a nation-leading $15 per hour, after a state appeals court today reversed a judge’s ruling from August that disqualified signatures needed to place the measure on November’s ballot.

More at the link. The only reason that this was in court was that 61 registered voters had signed more than one petition, and not the wording of the ballot initiative itself. The initiative will be on the ballot.

I participated in a discussion thread on this issue with my friends on the left2 on the Delaware Liberal. The good hearted Liberals in the First State somehow seem to believe that the minimum wage3 can be slightly more than doubled without an economic consequences other than to enrich current minimum wage workers.

If you raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15.00 per hour, the minimum wage workers would receive a $7.75 per hour raise. The question is: would the current $10.00 per hour workers receive a $7.75 raise, to $17.75 per hour, or the $5.00 increase to take them to the legally required $15.00? Would workers already earning $18.00 an hour go to $25.75, or would their wages stay flat?

The answer, of course, is that it would vary by company, but overall, the most probable result would be a crowding of wages closer to the new minimum, making workers now earning well above the minimum closer to minimum wage workers.

Even if we assumed that everybody would get that $7.75 per hour raise, it would create the same crowding, percentagewise. The $7.25 minimum wage worker who gets a $7.75 per hour raise will have received 106.9% raise; the guy making $15.00 now, who gets a $7.75 raise, would get a 51.7% increase.

Naturally, all of those mandated raises mean that prices will have to be increased, because businesses still have to make a profit. The new $15.00 minimum will wind up buying just about what the current $7.25 minimum does now, because that’s just the way economics works.

Alas! it isn’t only the good hearted but completely business-illiterate people of DL who have placed political desires above economic sense; from Donald Douglas:

Radical Feminist Takeover at Harvard Business School

You’ve heard it a thousand times: radical leftist ideology strives fundamentally for the total reengineering of society, the complete makeover of social relations, by any means necessary, including coercion and force.

But we don’t often have perfect case studies of this at the highest levels of institutional power and prestige, especially at Harvard University, a private university where the normal decelerating processes inhibiting disruptive social change would be least in play.

So read this piece at the New York Times as a window to the programmatic world of the leftist institutional subversion. Importantly, mentioned at the top of the piece is Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust, a gender-drenched radical historian pushing an extreme-left program, including booting the university’s ROTC program from campus.

See, “Harvard Business School Case Study: Gender Equity“:

The country’s premier business training ground was trying to solve a seemingly intractable problem. Year after year, women who had arrived with the same test scores and grades as men fell behind. Attracting and retaining female professors was a losing battle; from 2006 to 2007, a third of the female junior faculty left.

Some students, like Sheryl Sandberg, class of ’95, the Facebook executive and author of “Lean In,” sailed through. Yet many Wall Street-hardened women confided that Harvard was worse than any trading floor, with first-year students divided into sections that took all their classes together and often developed the overheated dynamics of reality shows. Some male students, many with finance backgrounds, commandeered classroom discussions and hazed female students and younger faculty members, and openly ruminated on whom they would “kill, sleep with or marry” (in cruder terms). Alcohol-soaked social events could be worse.

“You weren’t supposed to talk about it in open company,” said Kathleen L. McGinn, a professor who supervised a student study that revealed the grade gap. “It was a dirty secret that wasn’t discussed.”

But in 2010, Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard’s first female president, appointed a new dean who pledged to do far more than his predecessors to remake gender relations at the business school. He and his team tried to change how students spoke, studied and socialized. The administrators installed stenographers in the classroom to guard against biased grading, provided private coaching — for some, after every class — for untenured female professors, and even departed from the hallowed case-study method.

The dean’s ambitions extended far beyond campus, to what Dr. Faust called in an interview an “obligation to articulate values.” The school saw itself as the standard-bearer for American business. Turning around its record on women, the new administrators assured themselves, could have an untold impact at other business schools, at companies populated by Harvard alumni and in the Fortune 500, where only 21 chief executives are women. The institution would become a laboratory for studying how women speak in group settings, the links between romantic relationships and professional status, and the use of everyday measurement tools to reduce bias.

“We have to lead the way, and then lead the world in doing it,” said Frances Frei, her words suggesting the school’s sense of mission but also its self-regard. Ms. Frei, a popular professor turned administrator who had become a target of student ire, was known for the word “unapologetic,” as in: we are unapologetic about the changes we are making.

More at the links, both Dr Douglas’ and the references article from The New York Times. Emphases are Dr Douglas.’

I had a (brief) discussion with my friend Tim, who owns a small business, a bagel breakfast restaurant. He’s a minimum wage employer, and his wife and he work long, long hours. With the tourist season mostly winding up around here — we’ll still have our big Fall Foliage weekends in October — and he’s concerned about his business surviving the winter. He had a decent crowd in this weekend when I stopped, but the dead of winter means pretty dead business for him. Naturally, I stop every morning on my way to work — a 16 oz coffee and a sesame bagel, dark toasted, with butter — but that’s just $3.70 (of which 21¢ is state sales tax) and his breakfast stops just aren’t that many. That is real economics, and if the Delaware Liberals who think that Tim’s minimum wage employees should get $15.00 an hour or the President, who thinks that Tim should just be able to afford to pay for his employees’ health insurance or the Harvard Business School dean who thinks that feminism is somehow part of an economic equation don’t agree, Tim’s and Angie’s business will succeed, or fail, based solely on whether enough people enter his restaurant and buy bagels and coffee for breakfast and lunch, and not one other thing.

Economics has been called the dismal science since the mid 19th century, and not without cause. Economists measure past activity and try to predict future behavior on the part of economic actors, frequently with not much success — note the very learned economists’ projections of the impact of the 2009 stimulus plan, for example, or the simple fact that economists’ aggregate projections of what the August jobs report would reveal, a measure of past activity, were wrong4 — and if it is a behavioral science, it is a not-very-charitable or nice one. People as economic actors seem to behave in what they perceive to be their own best interests, and not at all the way that our friends on the left believe that they should behave.5

This is, of course, what our friends on the left simply cannot comprehend. Businesses are run to make a profit, period, and in their attempts to earn profits, not all businessmen are going to do so in ways that the Delaware Liberals would particularly approve. For my friend Tim to pay his current minimum wage workers $15.00 an hour would be to more than double his labor costs. To do that, he’d have to raise the prices on his bagels dramatically, which would hurt his business,6 of keep his prices constant, and go broke.

A gentleman styling himself “socialistic ben” put the DL’s position best:

If nothing else, it is just showing us what greedy slime-balls most “job creators” are. Actively trying to keep their employees at a low standard of living. Voluntarily keeping their beloved business small so they don’t have to lift a finger for another human. It’s disgusting…. and totally unnecessary.

Costco is doin’ just fine. They have put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by treating their human resources like humans. Dana, you are defending greed. If a company cant stay in business while playing fair, they don’t deserve to be in business.

I guess that Tim doesn’t deserve to be in business, according to Ben, because he’s just barely scraping by while paying minimum wage and not providing health insurance. Trouble is, there are a whole lot of small business owners like Tim and Angie; they’d be hourly employees somewhere else, and the jobs that they have risked their own money to create wouldn’t exist, were our economic system what Ben and the other liberals think it ought to be.

And that, in the end, is the problem with liberal economics: economics is what it is, and being “liberal” does not enter into the equation. Either a company makes a profit, and can stay in business, or it does not, and eventually fails. Adding more burdens, more costs, to businesses for well-intended liberal goals simply makes it harder for businesses to succeed, and increases the number of them which will fail. That’s why liberals need to be kept away from economics: they don’t know what they are talking about. If liberals really did understand economics, they wouldn’t be liberals anymore.
__________________________

  1. SeaTac is a suburb of Seattle, Washington.
  2. Perhaps “friends” is a bit of an overly optimistic term, since Jason330 doesn’t seem to like me very much. I cannot tell you how man tears of anguish over this situation I have shed.
  3. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.
  4. The projections were for 180,000 new jobs and the unemployment rate to hold constant at 7.4%; the number of job creations reported was 169,000, but the unemployment rate fell to 7.3%, because so many people dropped out of the work force.
  5. At this point, I’d note then-presidential candidate John Edwards and his whining about “two Americas,” saying that he wouldn’t buy from WalMart, because they were so evil, and then sending a staffer to get a Playstation 3 from WalMart for his kid. Naturally, it was all blamed on the staffer’s poor decisions.
  6. He’s actually a few cents higher than the Dunkin’ Donuts a few miles away, but his shop is much more conveniently located for commuters coming from Jim Thorpe, simply because it is on the right, rather than the left, side of the street.

67 Comments

  1. SeaTac is an incorporated city (1990) of a little over 10 sq miles with over 25,000 residents. It surrounds SeaTac airport and is home to nearly 80 Fortune 1000 companies. It has a city manager form of government with an elected city council.

    Workers from nearby cities commute to SeaTac for jobs, rather than being a suburb of either Seattle or Tacoma the city offers employment to nearly twice it’s number of residents.

  2. Trying to explain the realities of free markets to Leftists is like extolling the virtues of chastity to prostitutes, they’ve heard that sort of silly talk plenty of times before and thinking about it’s implications is not only an annoying waste of time, it doesn’t put any money it the pimp’s pockets.

  3. If liberals really did understand economics, they wouldn’t be liberals anymore.

    Dana, I REALLY wish you’d deep-six this expression. It is both hopelessly naive as well as factually untrue. Quit assuming that left wingers don’t understand economics – even Marx understood capitalism quite well – they just hate it and want to destroy it.

  4. I guess that Tim doesn’t deserve to be in business, according to Ben, because he’s just barely scraping by while paying minimum wage and not providing health insurance. Trouble is, there are a whole lot of small business owners like Tim and Angie; they’d be hourly employees somewhere else, and the jobs that they have risked their own money to create wouldn’t exist, were our economic system what Ben and the other liberals think it ought to be.

    And that, in the end, is the problem with liberal economics: economics is what it is, and being “liberal” does not enter into the equation. Either a company makes a profit, and can stay in business, or it does not, and eventually fails. Adding more burdens, more costs, to businesses for well-intended liberal goals simply makes it harder for businesses to succeed, and increases the number of them which will fail. That’s why liberals need to be kept away from economics: they don’t know what they are talking about. If liberals really did understand economics, they wouldn’t be liberals anymore.

    Again, you are trying to inject facts into an argument where facts don’t matter. Double the minimum wage and millions of people will be thrown out of work. Of course, they’ll then have to go on the government dole, which is probably what your “Friends on the Left” really wanted in the first place.

  5. Alas! it isn’t only the good hearted but completely business-illiterate people of DL who have placed political desires above economic sense; from Donald Douglas:

    What makes you assume they are good hearted? As I said, doubling the minimum wage will throw millions of people out of work and bankrupt God only knows how many businesses. This is not good hearted at all, rather, it is just another piece in their relentless drive to acquire more power and control over the rest of us.

  6. Radical Feminist Takeover at Harvard Business School

    You’ve heard it a thousand times: radical leftist ideology strives fundamentally for the total reengineering of society, the complete makeover of social relations, by any means necessary, including coercion and force.

    Interesting to see how this plays out. In the liberal arts, in fields like Sociology or Women’s Studies, you can get away with peddling twaddle in the name of ideology. But in real fields of study, like Business, Engineering, and Medicine, facts matter. And for decades a Harvard MBA was like gold because, in large part, they were dedicated to a hard headed approach to the facts. Now it sounds like they want to inject some type of feminist dogma into the mix, to make it “Fair” for the girlies, or something. If they keep this up, pretty soon a Harvard MBA diploma will be suitable for use as toilet paper and not much else.

  7. “Again, you are trying to inject facts into an argument where facts don’t matter.”

    Pithy.

    Yes, predicting, demonstrating or even proving the unacceptable consequences is of no use, because the people to whom you are referring, don’t view them as unacceptable. Eggs, omelets, and so on according to (apparently) Chef Robespierre and his school.

    Note that the introductory paragraph implies the same thing anyway as it describes the parameters of the agenda,

    “You’ve heard it a thousand times: radical leftist ideology strives fundamentally for the total reengineering of society, the complete makeover of social relations, by any means necessary, including coercion and force.”

  8. Naturally, all of those mandated raises mean that prices will have to be increased, because businesses still have to make a profit. The new $15.00 minimum will wind up buying just about what the current $7.25 minimum does now, because that’s just the way economics works.

    Uh-huh. Perhaps you were asleep when they had this class back in the fifth or sixth grade: – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_of_production#Classical

  9. In fact, Dana, you demonstrated your ignorance of this basic point in economics when you made this comment on the thread you mention:

    Why would it do that? Since the prices which the fast food places would have to charge would increase, the multinationals would still see roughly the same profits, adjusted for inflation.

    Nope.

    The problem with your thinking can be easily demonstrated by turning it around – if what you were saying was true, then lowering wages would also not result in greater profits for companies.

    To a first approximation, prices would rise, but by relatively less than the increase in wages. If you take the modelling deeper, they might not rise much at all – and the macro-effects of reversing some of the income inequality currently crippling your economy would be considerable.

  10. Being in the food business, your friends Tim and Angie need to maintain a labor cost of between 15% and 20% of gross sales maximum. Therefore, to employ just 4 people at $15 an hour their payroll would be $2400 a week. That means they would need to gross $12,000 a week. They probably run a 6 day a week operation so that averages $2,000 a day. So they would need about 560 customers a day spending $3.59 per order. I doubt very much that a little breakfast bagel place could even do 560 customers a day since around here the successful ones do about $6,000 a week which is half. So a spike of base pay to $15.00 for Tim and Angie would be the end. So not only would their current employees be out of a job but Tim and Angie would be out looking too.

  11. No, Hoagie, the net effect is your friends would simply fire their American workers and hire illegal aliens instead, for whom minimum wage laws simply don’t apply.

  12. This is the difference between our Wellington Wibrarian, who has never run a business, who has never met a payroll, and our raconteur restaurateur, who has run a business, who has met a payroll.

    Summer is ending, and Tim is worried about getting his parking lot plowed when it snows. He’s got an offer of $75 a hour from one fellow, who took two hours — which I thought was way too long — to do his lot last year. These are the little things that our friends on the left never consider; they don’t know economics, and they certainly don’t understand business.

    However, even Hoagie made it too simple: there are overhead costs associated with employees. Just the employer’s portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes raises the cost from $2,400 a week to $2,583.60. Then there are all sorts of insurances which have to be paid even if the business is not providing health insurance; workman’s compensation being the most obvious.

  13. I was trying to keep it as simple as I could realizing there is a zero experience level. I didn’t even want to touch the “add-on” costs of employment nor the extras that Obamacare will inflict.

    It could be an interesting experiment if SeaTac did do a $15.00 MW. But the libertarian in me resents that “the voters” anywhere could decide randomly how much every single worker is worth. Especially when it is not they who would be forced to pay the tab (directly, that is). But that is a penchant of leftism, forcing others to you what you want them to do. I mean these leftists have really gotten toxic. Just take a peak at Bridging The Gap and you’ll see what I mean. There is no more toxic vitriol than the rabid vulgarity of dumb-assed leftists.

    Tim should go on Craigslist and get a plow guy and make the deal on a “per job” basis. I’ve found that cheaper than hourly. BTW, a lot of landscapers do plowing in winter.

  14. These are the little things that our friends on the left never consider; they don’t know economics, and they certainly don’t understand business.

    Again, Dana, you are missing the point (Hoagie got it, though). Whether these left wingers understand economics is irrelevant. As Hoagie said, it’s a POWER thing. Left wingers think they have a RIGHT to dictate to others how to live, to boss them around, to give them ORDERS. And that’s what this minimum wage crap is really about, not economics.

    Of course, people aren’t stupid. They don’t LIKE being bossed around, and sure as hell not by left wing turds. To reference my post above, a common alternative to firing American workers and hiring illegal foreigners is to not hire Americans in the first place and bring the work to the foreigners instead. I read recently that Apple Computer has about 500,000 employees in China alone. That’s 500,000 jobs that could be here, and that’s just one company. But no, between the unions and the politicians, they have made work so expensive in the States that it makes better business sense to do it overseas.

  15. Liberal Democrats don’t have to know the first thing about Economics, they just take the money and run. Gateway Pundit has the 411.

    13 Democrats Charged With Embezzling $16 Million In Federal Grants For AIDS Charities And Other Needy Programs!

    Rev. Wright Daughter Among Those Charged

    Daughter of Reverend “God Damn America” Wright and 12 other Democrats are charged with embezzling $16 million in Federal health grants that should have gone to AIDS charities and other programs for the poor and needy.

    - See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/13-democrats-charged-with-embezzling-16-million-in-federal-grants-for-aids-charities-and-other-needy-programs-rev-wright-daughter-among-those-charged/#sthash.nkts4nZq.dpuf

  16. As a business owner who’s looking to hire someone in the near future (yes, I am a business owner), I can say with absolute certainty the amount I pay a person is critical as to whether I will be able to expand my business. And the book putter backer will never even begin to understand how to make a profit in business.

  17. This is the difference between our Wellington Wibrarian, who has never run a business, who has never met a payroll, and our raconteur restaurateur, who has run a business, who has met a payroll.

    *snicker*

    Figured out the difference between the trade deficit and the government deficit yet, Dana?

  18. “We also found mobile WMD labs that could create WMDs while driving down the highway.”, – John Hitchcock, 13 September 2011 at 18:51

    Figured out the difference between lies and reality yet?

  19. Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watchers’ Council Nominations – Komedy Kapers Edition

  20. Pingback: Watchers’ Council Nominations – Komedy Kapers Edition | Blog Post Directory

  21. Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watchers’ Council Nominations – Komedy Kapers Edition

  22. Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » Council Nominations: September 10, 2013

  23. Thus does Pho duck Dana’s point that he (Pho) has no working knowledge of economics or business.

    Eric, the two are not the same, and the fact that Dana doesn’t understand the basics of economics demonstrates the same.

    And you’d be wrong there too – I wasn’t always a librarian, you know.

  24. Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    ——-
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/11/massive-238-billion-financial-bailout-5-years-ago-avoided-catastrophe-but-only-3-billion-has-been-paid-back-treasury/

    Massive $238 billion financial bailout 5 years ago ‘avoided catastrophe,’ only $3 billion has yet to be paid back: Treasury

    The US Treasury said Wednesday the government’s massive response to the economic crisis five years ago paid off, avoiding a catastrophic breakdown of the financial system.

    In a report marking the anniversary of the bankruptcy of investment bank Lehman Brothers — which snowballed into the worst crisis since the 1930s — the Treasury defended deploying hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to save other banks, major financial institutions and auto companies.

    “Without the government’s forceful response, that damage would have been far worse, and the ultimate cost to repair the damage would have been far higher,” the report summarized.

    While the rescue effort required piling up government debt, it was necessary, said Treasury officials who briefed reporters.

    “We prevented a collapse of the financial system,” one said on condition of anonymity.

    “That’s why we did it, and that’s the measure of success.”
    ——-

  25. The US Treasury said Wednesday the government’s massive response to the economic crisis five years ago paid off, avoiding a catastrophic breakdown of the financial system.

    Gee, the Treasury reporting on itself. That’s sort of like a director reviewing his own movie …

  26. Pingback: Watchers’ Council Nominations – Komedy Kapers Edition | askmarion

  27. Frankly he sounds like he was always a Liberian. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Unless he talks economics or business , both of which he has no education nor experience in. There is nothing more dumbass than either a lawyer, teacher or doctor ( or some dumbass in government ) who thinks (in the small recesses of his mind) he knows more about economics or business then do I.

    Not even close…dumbass. I’m a millionaire, are U? If not then shut the fuck up. U can talk medicine, science, math, mechanics, architecture, animal husbandry and a whole lot more. But when you talk economics or business, you are a fool (and way, way out of your league ). Unless you can show success in either. I can. In both. And it’s not just what I own ( a Bentley, Corvette, Lincoln, 1976 Corvette, 1970 Olds 442 a home in Bermuda and a small homestead in America , 16 acres of PRIME property in Atlanta) but I also have holdings in Asia. Com’on baby, talk to me. Tell me how wrong I am as …….a capitalist.

    After all you know more about economics than either I or Dana (sarc). Sorry, dumbass, you don’t. I know Dana, met him, ate with him and (I) drank with him. He’s got more balls and is a “self-made” Portuguese-American (bull shit, he’ just American). He’s a working man, and proud of it. As he should be! Perry’s a “child advocate”, a government worker, a sloth and proud of it (cause as a child advocate he gets credit for helping “the children”, which he EXPLOITS for his own benefit and income!)

    Both you and Perry have some kind of attitude that does not allow you to see the truth. The truth is both of you could be decent people if you just opened your minds and stopped thinking that everyone who disagrees with you are stupid, ignorant raaaaacists. We are not! And you both could be the type of guys that ANYONE would go out for a drink with if you stopped being so adamant that your way is the ONLY way. Open your minds, for crap sake.

    IOW, stop being a leftist and start being an open-minded person. (That does not mean you need to be a conservative, just open the hell up ).

  28. After all you know more about economics than either I or Dana (sarc). Sorry, dumbass, you don’t.

    Dana was pontificating without knowing the difference between the trade deficit and the government deficit. And you, obviously, don’t comprehend the difference between business administration and economics, or microeconomics and macroeconomics.

    That says it all regarding the “economic expertise” of wingnuts.

  29. Dana was pontificating without knowing the difference between the trade deficit and the government deficit. And you, obviously, don’t comprehend the difference between business administration and economics, or microeconomics and macroeconomics.

    Of course I don’t, dumbass. I’m only the guy with a degree in economics. ANY, ANY Liberian knows more than I.

    I’m also the guy with the Bentley, I’m sooooo stupid! Ha, Ha. *smirk*

    BTW, I’m looking at a late 90′s Rolls Royce Seraph, just for shits and giggles. I can get it for a measly $ 35,000. Wadayou think, Rockefeller?

  30. Both you and Perry have some kind of attitude that does not allow you to see the truth. The truth is both of you could be decent people if you just opened your minds and stopped thinking that everyone who disagrees with you are stupid, ignorant raaaaacists.

    Decent people like the one making this comment?

    “Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling) has made it known that she is promiscuous in her Flucking habits. That makes her, at best, a slut. The fact that she wants me to pay for her Flucking habits makes her, at best, a slut who wants to become a whore. And what is a whore? That is a person who makes others pay for his/her flucking, which is exactly what Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling) is attempting to do. She is a slut attempting to become a whore. And she wants the whole nation to pay for her whorring around.

    “Tough titty” said the kitty when the milk ran dry.

    Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling) made her bed.
    Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling) slept in her bed with who knows how many others.
    Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling) needs to clean her own encrusted sheets and not demand others do it for her.

    She wants to be a slut? It’s a free country (but becoming less free day by day as Leftists trash the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution). She can be a slut if she wants to. But since she is trying to become a whore, I say no! I will not pay for her whore services!

    Besides, I seriously doubt her family is proud of her. I seriously doubt they would call her a good Fluck (phonetic spelling) with all her sleeping around and trying to get paid for it.

    I’ll pass. You and your friends are repellent, loathsome excuses for human beings.

  31. Of course I don’t, dumbass.

    Thank you for admitting it. Facing up to your ignorance is the first step to recovery.

    Taken out of context, just like a normal leftist liar would. No surprise there. But still disappointing.

    But then, in an effort to distract you go to Sandra Fluke, who has ABSOLUTLEY nothing to do with this thread and add:

    I’ll pass. You and your friends are repellent, loathsome excuses for human beings.

    You know what’s “repellant”? People who can’t win without pointing a finger, moving a goal post, changing the topic or falling back on poor, stupid, Sandra Fluke. Why do leftists always try and do their war on women every time they loose an argument on economics? I guess we’re lucky tonight. He coulda called us raaaaacists. Funny thing, they still don’t win.

  32. Hoagie:
    You know what’s “repellant”? People who can’t win without pointing a finger, moving a goal post, changing the topic or falling back on poor, stupid, Sandra Fluke.

    Actually reading his stuff is a good comic diversion. The Left’s tactics are to denigrate, point fingers, and any other sidetrack tactic. It’s expected. The playbook of the left says, when you have no facts, attack and belittle. Just watch the response to this. It’s automatic. They can’t help it, it’s in their DNA. Maybe it qualifies as a disability? :-)

  33. Eric, the two are not the same, and the fact that Dana doesn’t understand the basics of economics demonstrates the same.

    Well, you’re right. They’re not the same. For one thing, it’s much easier to peddle bullshit in economics (Marxism, Keynesianism) and get away with it. Take Obama’s infamous Stimulus. It didn’t work. But did the people peddling it tell the truth? No, they just made up bigger lies to cover themselves. Lies like:

    1. It would have worked if we had spent more money. That’s like saying “One magic spell failed to re-animate the corpse. Maybe we should have tried two.”

    2. The Stimulus prevented things from getting even worse. Not a lie, technically, but merely stating the unprovable, like saying you would have won at blackjack if the dealer had had a different hand.

    But in business, bullshit rarely flies, at least not for very long. For example, any engineer can tell you that electric cars (outside of golf courses) are a stupid idea, and most automakers want nothing to do with them. Nor do their customers. Only politicians think they’re a good idea, and that’s because politicians:

    1. Aren’t engineers and understand neither science or technology.
    2. Are idiots.
    3. Like to boss people around whether it makes sense or not.
    4. Like certain economists, they believe in magic, that a combination of politics and ideology can make the impossible real just by wishing it to be so.

  34. Yorkshire, I’m used to it. The dumbass leftist from wherever is constantly trying to change the subject by asking Eric about his book. Like he cares. It’s distraction, childish and….dumbass. That’s what they are! Eric may or may not sell a book, that’s Eric’s thing. I hope he succeeds, obviously the “others” don’t. That’s petty, vulgar and just nasty.

    Still ain’t got an answer. Should I jump for the Silver Seraph? June is not amused but she knows I’ve bought and sold a lot of Rolls and Bentleys in the past and made good money. Plus I get to drive them. I do love British cars.

  35. The Phoenician wrote:

    I wasn’t always a librarian, you know.

    Do tell.

    Remember that line from Caddyshack where one of the caddies says (to Rodney Dangerfield):

    Actually, I’m a rich millionaire but my doctor told me to carry golf bags around for my health.

    Maybe Pho’s like that …

  36. Dana was pontificating without knowing the difference between the trade deficit and the government deficit. And you, obviously, don’t comprehend the difference between business administration and economics, or microeconomics and macroeconomics.

    That says it all regarding the “economic expertise” of wingnuts.

    Well, let’s see. The fact that you’ve looked up some stuff on economics courtesy of Google and/or Wiki does not mean that:

    1. You understand it. Or (and here’s the really relevant part),
    2. Know how to apply that knowledge in a manner that has real world consequences.

    You’re like the guy who plays a lot of Fantasy Football and now thinks he’s qualified to coach in the NFL. Or a guy who’s played a lot of Navy SEAL video games and thinks he’s qualified to be a real Navy SEAL.

  37. I’ll pass. You and your friends are repellent, loathsome excuses for human beings.

    Oh, spare us the phony moralizing. Like YOU really care about poor ol’ put upon Miss Sandra Fluck! And you’re in no position to pass moral judgment on ANYONE, given your behavior here. In the several years you’ve been on this site and the old one, I’ve NEVER known you to have a kind word for anyone, to have anything pleasant to say to anyone, to congratulate anyone on their success or commiserate with anyone who’s suffering. You just hang around here like a pest, looking for opportunities to slip in s sneer or a jeer, indeed, your sole source of pleasure seems to come from attacking people and engaging in vicious personal insults.

    Hoagie is right. You could be a decent person if you wanted to. But you have chosen not to be. Indeed, nothing you have posted here indicates that you, yourself, are happy at all.

    This is probably a mistake, given they virtually all efforts to engage you in sincere conversation are greeted with the usual snotty mockery, but you might want to ask yourself the following serious question – namely, what do you want to be thinking when you’re on your deathbed? Because when that moment comes, there’ll be no “Rewind” button, no “Do-Overs”, no Instant Replay. It will be it, FINAL. And especially so if you are, as you claim, an atheist. You will be confronted with the notion of “Did I make my dreams come true, or did I spend countless hours on the Internet sneering at people? What will be my legacy? Will people say ‘He really made a difference, made the world a better place’? Or will they say ‘Thank God the old bastard’s dead, now let’s shovel him in the dirt and let the worms have him’?”

    If I were you, I’d be thinking about these things. Long and hard.

  38. But then, in an effort to distract you go to Sandra Fluke, who has ABSOLUTLEY nothing to do with this thread and add:

    You really are stupid, aren’t you?

    Sandra Fluke herself had nothing to do with this thread.

    That one of the main wingnuts on this blog, one of your “decent people”, saw fit to lie and sexually insult her in the crudest terms because he disagreed with her politics and no other wingnut took him to task for this has EVERYTHING to do with the thread.

    You are not decent people. You are repellent loathsome excuses for human beings, and I thank God or Whoever It May Concern that I am not like you.

  39. Yorkshire, I’m used to it. The dumbass leftist from wherever is constantly trying to change the subject by asking Eric about his book. Like he cares. It’s distraction, childish and….dumbass.

    Apart from the fact that it clearly demonstrates Eric is a deluded fool?

    Allow me to demonstrate again:

    Eric Well, you’re right. They’re not the same. For one thing, it’s much easier to peddle bullshit in economics (Marxism, Keynesianism) and get away with it. Take Obama’s infamous Stimulus. It didn’t work.

    —-
    http://freakonomics.com/2012/07/25/the-secret-consensus-among-economists/

    Let’s start with Obama’s stimulus. The standard Republican talking point is that it failed, meaning it didn’t reduce unemployment. Yet in a survey of leading economists conducted by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, 92 percent agreed that the stimulus succeeded in reducing the jobless rate. On the harder question of whether the benefit exceeded the cost, more than half thought it did, one in three was uncertain, and fewer than one in six disagreed.
    —-

  40. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

    Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs

    Amid mounting signs that the economic recovery is faltering, one potential remedy seems out of the question: a booster shot of government spending.

    The White House says the multiyear $814 billion stimulus program passed by Congress in 2009 boosted employment by 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs and raised the nation’s annual economic output by almost $400 billion. A recent study by two prominent economists generally agrees, crediting the pump-priming with averting “what could have been called Great Depression 2.0.”
    [...]
    Eighteen months later, the consensus among economists is that the stimulus worked in staving off a rerun of the 1930s. But the spending’s impact was dwarfed by other crisis-fighting tools deployed by the Bush and Obama administrations, including costly efforts to stabilize crippled banks and the Fed’s unconventional monetary policy.

    “I think it was important for confidence. … But fiscal stimulus was the least important of the three planks of the government’s strategy,” said Harvard University’s Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund.

    Christina Romer, the outgoing head of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, never really recovered politically from her January 2009 forecast that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. In fact, by the time Obama signed the Recovery Act into law on Feb. 17, 2009, it already had breached that level. (The original administration forecast was prepared using data from late 2008 before the already-wounded economy deteriorated even more dramatically.) The unemployment rate hit 10.1% in October 2009 and stands at 9.5% today.

    Republican leaders such as Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia say that proves the stimulus a failure. But Romer last month told the Joint Economic Committee that the stimulus “helped to turn the economy from free fall to recovery.”

    It’s no surprise that the administration would proclaim its own policies a success. But its verdict is backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7%.

  41. But, of course, Eric will ignore these because Eric is a deluded fool who is a prime example of teh Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Sold your book for a million dollars to Hollywood yet, Eric?

  42. Scientists of all stripes try to create models through which to test their hypotheses, a sometimes difficult endeavor. Economists from the left, however, have had just such models, such experiments, conducted for them, by the liberal governments of the developed world. Politicians, always eager to provide a better life for their constituents, have been passing budgets and spending bills in excess of what their countries have been earning for decades. According to the theories of leftist economists, those countries ought to have booming economies, having been stimulated year after year after year.

    Instead we have the developed nations — the US, the UK, France, Germany — which are in the best shape slogging through several years of economic doldrums, while the ones in not-such-good shape, like Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland, trying to keep from going bankrupt.

    Even if we credit the theories of John Maynard Keynes as being correct, Mr Keynes called for governments to balance their budgets and pay their bills during good times, and that part just didn’t happen. Even in the years in which the US had balanced its government budget, our national debt increased. Our years and years of never paying back our debts, and our continual stimulating of the economy has created a situation in which stimulation is the normal state of things, not something special. We have, in effect, inoculated our economies to Keynesianism.

  43. But, of course, Eric will ignore these because Eric is a deluded fool

    An interesting rant coming from someone who just attacked Hitchcock with great moral pomposity for merely having a bit of sport with Miss Fluck’s name and (alleged) sexual behavior.

    As for the rest, as I said earlier, any idiot can find anything they want by using Google. All that proves is they know how to use Google, something any computer literate 8 year old can do.

  44. You are not decent people. You are repellent loathsome excuses for human beings

    Problem is, you’re not morally qualified to make such a statement. In fact, from everything I’ve seen, you have no moral values AT ALL.

  45. You are not decent people. You are repellent loathsome excuses for human beings

    Oh, and PS: The above is what’s known among morally literate people as a great, big, fat LIE. And what proves the lie is the fact that you keep posting here. Between this site and the old one you’ve been posting regularly for years. So, what keeps you coming back? Sensible people don’t spend enormous amounts of time in the company of people they can’t stand.

    So, what brings you here again and again? The reason is obvious – jealousy and envy. You’re the typical loser who wants to be around winners, but whose ego is such that he can’t admit it, even to himself. That’s why, when Dana asked you what you did besides library work, you didn’t answer. That’s the sure sign of a loser. Most likely, your other job had something to do with a mop, or perhaps learning the phrase “Would you like fries with that?” Why else do you resent Hoagie so much? You claim to understand economics better than him, but why is he rich and you poor? Why do you obsess over me writing a book? Probably because I have the balls to dream big, and the confidence and talent to make it happen, while you wallow in your mediocrity because you have no balls, no drive, and no talent.

  46. That one of the main wingnuts on this blog, one of your “decent people”, saw fit to lie and sexually insult her in the crudest terms because he disagreed with her politics and no other wingnut took him to task for this has EVERYTHING to do with the thread.

    Yeah, Pho, and I’m sure that every time Sarah Palin was unfairly attacked merely because they disagreed with her politics, you jumped right in and told them to mind their manners. Right, Pho?

    Here’s the problem, Pho. It’s rather hard to take your complaints seriously when you act like such an a$$hole yourself, and hang out in the company of like minded a$$holes. You might have an ounce of credibility if you routinely acted with kindness and decency, but you never do.

  47. Like a famous movie said, “Stay on target. Stay on target,” as Luke was getting bombarded with heavy flak. This thread is about the degenerate Left’s inability to make any of their supposed economic theories work. It is not about some degenerate Leftist slut who attended a Catholic university and wanted to become a taxpayer paid whore.

  48. By the way, when I have weekly revenue of around 2500, I am operating at a loss. My break-even point is closer to 3000. And my future plans are to make my break-even point move to about 30,000 dollars per week in revenue, and to be semi-retired in under 10 years.

    Yes, I’m a businessman and an educator.

  49. Pingback: Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council nominations for September 12, 2013

  50. That one of the main wingnuts on this blog, one of your “decent people”, saw fit to lie and sexually insult her in the crudest terms because he disagreed with her politics and no other wingnut took him to task for this has EVERYTHING to do with the thread.

    That is blatantly false. No one lied or “sexually insulted” (whatever that is) Sandra Fluke. And those “crudest terms” were not crude at all since it was she who decided her sex life was going to be an open book because as a good little commie leftist she decided it was he Catholic college’s duty to pay for her birth control. She’s the slut, not Hitchcock, not Yorkshire, not Eric not me or anyone else. You just can’t handle the truth. A woman (not a kid) at a $50,000 a year school demands someone else pay for her birth control pills because she evidently has so much sex it’s a financial burden on her. That’s not a political difference of opinion. That’s a slut!

    It’s amazing how the vulgar pigs on the left talk about “hate fucking” Palin, or raping Bachmann, or how Palin’s grandchild is actually her kid and dozens more pathetic and disgusting things said about good, God fearing family women but you call a whore a whore and they go all dumbass. As usual.

  51. That is blatantly false. No one lied or “sexually insulted” (whatever that is) Sandra Fluke.

    ““Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling) has made it known that she is promiscuous in her Flucking habits. That makes her, at best, a slut. ”

    Here is Sandra Fluke’s testimony.

    Sandra Fluke never made a comment about her sexual habits. Go and read it.

    John Hitchcock lied about her statement. He then used that lie to apply a sexual insult.

    She’s the slut, not Hitchcock, not Yorkshire, not Eric not me or anyone else.

    And you continue with that lie and with the sexual insults because, like Hitchock, you are a repellent, loathsome excuse for a human being.

  52. Sandra Fluke never made a comment about her sexual habits.

    Yes she did. She stated she wanted her contraceptives paid for therefore stating she needed help with as you call it, “her sexual habits”. She wants us to pay to support her “sexual habits”. Now she didn’t specifically say she screws 40 guys a month, she left that to interpretation. She just stated as a slut she expected to be compensated for her birth control thereby crossing into the whore area by asking for payment. Stop being a dumbass. You are defending a filthy, greedy, self centered libtard and her desire to get paid to have sex. Of course since you too are a self centered, greedy libtard I would expect nothing less.

    BTW, her “testimony” were not the only interviews she gave on the subject. Her “testimony” was not all she stated in public, at school or other places.

    you are a repellent, loathsome excuse for a human being.

    Yeah, and I still have a Bentley and you have a bike. Just remember, you’re the dumbass who keeps coming here calling people names and only after days and days of reading your dumbass shit do we respond in kind. If you could actually make a cogent argument without being an asshole perhaps you would not be so looked down upon by us, your betters.

  53. BTW, her “testimony” were not the only interviews she gave on the subject. Her “testimony” was not all she stated in public, at school or other places.

    Plus, let’s not pretend Miss Fluck was the Virgin freaking Mary here. If she wasn’t a sexual whore then she certainly was a political whore. She dragged her mug in front of the boob tube, not to advance some worthy cause like, say, asking for research money to cure malaria, but solely to pressure politicians to force her college to pay for her selfish sexual needs. A generation ago, someone this trashy would have been laughed out of existence and what friends and family she had would be ashamed to know her, but now, one half of America’s political system has become so degenerate and lacking in morals that they actually put her in prime time at their national convention!

  54. Yes she did. She stated she wanted her contraceptives paid for therefore stating she needed help with as you call it, “her sexual habits”.

    No, she didn’t, and your comment contains two further lies.

    Here’s the testimony again.

    i, At what point during that testimony did she say she was using contraception?

    ii, How exactly are you interpreting ““We expected that when 94% of students oppose the policy the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for – completely unsubsidized by the university. as “I want other people to pay for my contraception”?

    Both Hitchcock and you are lying about what she said, and you do so solely so you can paint a woman speaking up in public with a sexual slur.

    You are bottom-feeding scum – repellent, loathsome excuses for human beings.

Comments are closed.