“Socialism means equality of income or nothing... under
socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be
forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you
like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character
enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed
in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would
have to live well.” —George Bernard Shaw
Salon should just become the socialist publication of record.
0% Unemployment!
Read at your own risk. Seriously. It's that bad.
Examples:
"The conservative objection to jobs programs is usually that such win-win scenarios are impossible. Writing in National Review, Kevin Williamson writes that what guaranteed jobs provide, “by definition, is: nothing of economic value.” But this objection only holds if the market perfectly provides all human wants at the correct human prices. "
/face palm.
"Once we start investigating the numbers, it’s surprising how doable guaranteeing jobs looks. If there are 9.8 million unemployed people, giving each of them a $30,000-a-year full-time job (approximately $15 per hour) would cost about $294 billion. "
Overhead? What's that?
Let's get one thing clear. There's no investigating going on here. Just a stupid interpretation of numbers without much reason or context - and magic. All numbers are fixed to a subject that is in constant flux.
What is 'human prices?' Never mind. I don't want to know.
What I find most interesting - nay disturbing - all the basic, rudimentary fundamentals we learned in economics class seem to be outright ignored by articles like this one - and the commenters.
It goes without saying I trust they never had the benefit of learning economics - never mind about business and finance.
Anyway.
Things like 'overhead' go right over their, erm, heads. They make calculations based on 'other people will eat the difference because living wage!" And when a 'living wage' (whatever that means) is not given, it's because evil.
Only a simplistic mind rooted in zero-sum ideals overlooking subtle actions of the market could accept the notion espoused in the market.
This is what a 'grown up' discussion on economics looks like.
People like Elizabeth Warren - for some reason seen as a Presidential candidate - talk like the former. Which says a lot about the ignorance of people when it comes to economics and business.
But what do you expect from a publication who publishes stupidity like this? Uber is a sign of true progress and they hate it because they're fucking commies.
Keep the guns (and knives) out of the hands of such people.
***
I have this 'Cultural comparative Jewsih and Muslim transgender issues in Africa and the paternalist world' degree and can't pay down my debts! Someone must pay because fairness!
Salon should just become the socialist publication of record.
0% Unemployment!
Read at your own risk. Seriously. It's that bad.
Examples:
"The conservative objection to jobs programs is usually that such win-win scenarios are impossible. Writing in National Review, Kevin Williamson writes that what guaranteed jobs provide, “by definition, is: nothing of economic value.” But this objection only holds if the market perfectly provides all human wants at the correct human prices. "
/face palm.
"Once we start investigating the numbers, it’s surprising how doable guaranteeing jobs looks. If there are 9.8 million unemployed people, giving each of them a $30,000-a-year full-time job (approximately $15 per hour) would cost about $294 billion. "
Overhead? What's that?
Let's get one thing clear. There's no investigating going on here. Just a stupid interpretation of numbers without much reason or context - and magic. All numbers are fixed to a subject that is in constant flux.
What is 'human prices?' Never mind. I don't want to know.
What I find most interesting - nay disturbing - all the basic, rudimentary fundamentals we learned in economics class seem to be outright ignored by articles like this one - and the commenters.
It goes without saying I trust they never had the benefit of learning economics - never mind about business and finance.
Anyway.
Things like 'overhead' go right over their, erm, heads. They make calculations based on 'other people will eat the difference because living wage!" And when a 'living wage' (whatever that means) is not given, it's because evil.
Only a simplistic mind rooted in zero-sum ideals overlooking subtle actions of the market could accept the notion espoused in the market.
This is what a 'grown up' discussion on economics looks like.
People like Elizabeth Warren - for some reason seen as a Presidential candidate - talk like the former. Which says a lot about the ignorance of people when it comes to economics and business.
But what do you expect from a publication who publishes stupidity like this? Uber is a sign of true progress and they hate it because they're fucking commies.
Keep the guns (and knives) out of the hands of such people.
***
I have this 'Cultural comparative Jewsih and Muslim transgender issues in Africa and the paternalist world' degree and can't pay down my debts! Someone must pay because fairness!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.