You’ve got your definitions backwards. Nominal values are those without accounting for inflation. Real values are with accounting for inflation.
If you want to continually attack me as being uneducated and ignorant, perhaps you should try to get at least a few of your basic facts right.
There’s only so much time in the day to deal with your misrepresentations.
Oh, wait. Initially you said “at minimum,” now you are saying “middle estimates.” So you are admitting that you misrepresented the CBO report? First admit that before bringing up other issues. If you think I’m going to fall for your Gish Gallop, you are mistaken.
Again, you show that you don’t know what you are talking about. Certain goods have inelastic supply-demand curves, and gasoline is widely thought to be one of them. The fact that you are not aware of inelasticity shows again that you don’t know what you are talking about. That you don’t understand that different goods have different types of supply-demand curves means that you have so little understanding of economics, that there’s no point discussing the topic with you.
Yes, thank you. Your own cite shows that you are misrepresenting his position.
Oh, well, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that you were in favor of unfair trade practices such as dumping (which is what Kucinich’s objection over steel is about). Yes, I agree. Most progressives will not support unfair trade practices.
wealth does not define a person’s soul. Democrats, even those who think everyone should get a piece of the pie, succeed sometimes BECAUSE they believe in equity.
There is a great difference between wealth and greed.
[quote=“ITR_champion, post:41, topic:699386”]
You’ve got your definitions backwards. Nominal values are those without accounting for inflation. Real values are with accounting for inflation.
Yes, you are correct here. I was in a hurry, and I had a brain fart.
Ah, crap. Work calls. I’m just going to have to stop going on the boards on weekdays.
You said that “progressive Democrats” would remove tariffs. I asked for a cite. You didn’t provide one. I guess that’s you’re way of admitting that what you said wasn’t true.
I didn’t say that at all. I said if you were concerned about the issue, you should vote for progressive Democrats.
But, I will say that I misinterpreted your original statement as being concerned about how trade issues affect the poor and middle class, rather than just removing tariffs. If your goal is simply to remove tarrifs, and you don’t care about unfair trade practices or third-world environmental damage or global climate change or labor exploitation, then, yes, progressive Democrats are not going to be your bag.
Of course, willy-nilly removing tariffs without addressing all those other issues hardly makes you a friend of the working class or poor. It makes you an antagonist of them.
I’ve already explained what sort of tariffs I’m talking about, and gave the example of the sugar tariff. The idea is fairly simple: foreigners produce sugar cheaper than American farmers. By imposing the tariff, the government prevents ordinary Americans from buying cheap foreign sugar. Instead we have to buy expensive American sugar, or go without. More money for sugar producers and less for the rest of us.
This has absolutely nothing to do with global warming or exploiting labor or any of the things that you mentioned in your last post.
You said that if I cared about such a blatant wealth transfer from poorer to richer, I should “vote for progressive Democrats”. I’ve now challenged you to provide a cite, explaining how you justify that statement. Plainly you’re not able to provide a cite, which doesn’t surprise me.
This is an unconvincing explanation. John Kerry, for instance, is enormously wealthy mainly because he married a woman whose family sold huge amounts of ketchup. It’s hard to tie that to his belief in equality.
But more to the point, many of the Democrats I listed and others get wealthy by doing exactly what Democrats supposedly oppose. For instance, a few weeks ago Burger King corporation purchased a Canadian donut chain as part of a tax maneuver that allowed the company to avoid paying taxes in the USA–corporate taxes in Canada are much lower. Democrats spent about five minutes being angry about this before moving on to the next thing. Warren Buffett has investments that will benefit considerably from this move, and other corporate “inversions”. Elizabeth Warren has raked in six-figure sums from any number of big corporations even as she supposedly rides in on her white horse to save us from corporate America.
It is quite understandable that Democrats would order people to forget about the Democrats.
This is all incorrect. I care deeply about the poor and the middle class, do not want them to be exploited by their employers, do not want them to have bad health care and do not want anyone to go bankrupt for any reason.
You certainly are making a remarkably large number of incorrect statements in this thread.
I suspect that the explanation that would convince you doesn’t exist.
But you’re not attacking the Democrats, right? You’re Just Asking Questions.
What I meant was this: even under the smallest minimum wage hike that the CBO considered, the expected number of poor people thrown out of their jobs is in the hundreds of thousands. Looking back, I see that I could have phrased it better, but my point is perfectly sound. You said there is “no evidence” that minimum wage leads to higher unemployment, and both the CBO report and the NBER survey paper that you’ve totally ignored flatly contradict you.
I cited the CBO report only to show that there is evidence that higher minimum wage will cost jobs. It has other effects as well, but I wasn’t discussing those.
Nah, dude. You started talking about sugar (and corn), and then you brought up Kucinich in this context, when Kucinich, according to your own cite, was talking about steel tarrifs in the context of dumping. Why did you bring up Kucinich if you wanted to stick to sugar? You want to jump all over the place, and then pretend you have something coherent to say.
However, let’s tackle ag subsidies first. The Congressional Progressive Caucus proposed eliminating or reducing farm/ag subsidies in their 2014 Back to Work budget. So, there’s your progressive Democrats working to eliminate farm subsidies.
Now, the reason I am discussing subsidies here is because you brought up corn, which I assume you were concerned about subsidies in that context. Also, sugar receives subsidies as well.
As for the sugar tariff, some Democrats did try to phase out sugar tariffs in 2012. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NV) and Harry Reid offered an amendment to phase out the tariffs, and was defeated by a coalition of Blue Dogs, Centrists and corporate Republicans. There’s your cite:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SP2393:
I’ll deal with the minimum wage tomorrow or the day after.
The CBO report gives a range of estimates, and the range includes both zero (or very few) and hundreds of thousands. That does not mean that the “the expected number of poor people thrown out of their jobs is in the hundreds of thousands.”
Here’s a CEPR report covers the NBER paper (I think) you are referring to. That NBER paper came out in 2006 and was published before further critical research came long. The CEPR paper addresses the NBER paper in detail. I’ll discuss the CBO report more in depth tomorrow.
If there’s anything consistent about Republican right-wingers, it’s that they assume all people are, at heart, motivated by the same things that motivate the right. Greed is the be-all and end-all of right-wing morality; they assume it must be so for liberals as well.
Warren Buffett and George Soros have each given billions to charity and plan on giving billions more. Yet, when they make political comments intended to help America, right-wingers insist that these cannot be altruistic but must have a hidden agenda, like advancing specific investments.
I think most of us, from either side of the river, will agree that government caters too much to the rich. But I don’t see electing lower- or middle-income politicians as key to the solution; people without wealth may often be more easily corrupted than the rich.
It’s not really relevant to the point you’re making, but just to be a stickler for details, Shaheen is from New Hampshire (NH), not Nevada.
The argument that increasing the minimum wage helps working people is easy – it has helped working people and raised incomes for the last few increases, without creating significant unemployment. Opponents said the exact same things about raising the minimum wage that ITR Chamption is saying now, and they were wrong then – their predictions were totally false. I see no reason to believe they are correct now, as long as we’re talking about measured and gradual minimum wage increases.
Personal attacks aren’t allowed. You should know that.
Warning issued.
The same traits that make one rise in politics are the same traits that make one succeed in making money. So it’s hardly surprising that most politicians are wealthy. Those wealthy politicians who have empathy for the poor tend to be Democrats, those without that empathy tend to be Republicans.