Yes, I do believe that they should spend that money rightfully but as a libertarian do you support privatizing Social Security. I think we need a less pro-corporation and a more pro-democratic and pro-people government.
We need the government to de facto be the people and be a socialist one.
@shanedk No, it's truth. Corporations are for profit only, that is their purpose. What do you think it's for, why do you think Goldman Saches gets all that money from the government? Goldman Saches knows that the people aren't paying for it so the government OPENLY gives money to the corporations.
Everything you do is for profit. You work a job for profit, you hang out with your friends for profit, you watch TV for profit--because you consider the value you get for ALL of those things to be greater than the costs. Complaining about others doing the same thing is blatant hypocrisy.
@ComradeMr I somewhat agree with you. Corporations are the enemy and they do it all for profit. Profit is just a financial state it has nothing to do with what shanedk mentioned. In a sense it wouldn't be right to have a "people" government, because the people aren't really the ones that make the better decisions. I mean even if you get rid of corporations there's always gonna be some idiot trying to take the cake. You can't trust the idiots walking around. Society needs to change.
Why don't they just be upfront about it and take it directly out of the Treasury from the income tax budget as a legitimate State expense of running a stable and just society and distribute it on a needs-based, assets-tested basis?
@GONZO66656 Actually, it's a direct tax, taken out of paychecks separately from Income Tax.
There is another bit of trickery to it: they only take out half of it from your paycheck; they make your employer pay the other half to disguise how much they're really taking. If you're self-employed, you pay the whole thing yourself.
If there is to be a separate system, it would need to be isolated from government coffers. Like the superannuation system we have in Australia. Employers (not employees) pay 9% directly into the employees' (independent) superannuation accounts as a long term (life long) investment plan. A lump sum (or a regular stipend) is then paid to retirees. Government pensions (asset tested) are still available to those that don't have super. I think that is roughly what you are advocating - yes?
Obama takes $40billion dollars from social security.. You work for GE or Daves bake shop they tax deduct your money calling Social Security Union Tax. Dave sets on Welfare and you work. Dave lauges while he calls you a scab. You paid nothing. A federal workers own child is a excuse for govt. to deposit large sums of money in social security to make it strong as McDonalds called it a loss on the W2 form. Where is the $40billion I guess Obama has got this in the bag. politics did not pay
"I just want to tell the objective truth about how government policies work." Regardless of your views on social security, it is not really objective if you frame the program as a Ponzi scheme. Even if that is your conclusion, you should explain how the program works, how it is abused and then present and defend your claim that it is a Ponzi scheme. Just sayin...this wasn't objective.
Stand up 4 your RIGHTS Americans.~ The REPUBLICANS have been FOOLING YOU for the last 30 yrs. SOCIAL SECURITY*, (SS) , is NOT an entitlement! SS HAS A $2.6 TRILLION SURPLUS. SS CAN pay every claim at least until 2030.~ SS DOES NOT increase the federal budget by one cent! Tell the REPUBLICAN GANGSTERS & THEIR WALLSTREET BANDIT FRIENDS that you will FIGHT any PRIVATIZATION OF your SS pension~You will FIGHT ANY REDUCTION IN BENEFITS. YOU will FIGHT any change in AGE REQUIREMENT FOR SS BENEFITS!
Why don't they just be upfront about it and take it directly out of the Treasury from the income tax budget as a legitimate State expense of running a stable and just society and distribute it on a needs-based, assets-tested basis?
@poindexterwitkowsky So how is it not a Ponzi scheme? Again, can you factually prove that it's not? Here's a little FYI, BOTH Democrats and Republicans have spent Social Security funds. If you could just answer those simple question, you would make me a believer for SS.
Thanks for this post of how bad the SS is and how messed up it is because of fraud and abuse in the system. I met a lady that was getting 4 checks on a bus in Cornelius Oregon that cursed me out for no reason because she had to go to a booze treatment program at Danville. Lady yell at someone else that can do something abut it and not me I did nothing. You do not deserve 4 checks. You jumped off the bus and had nothing physically wrong. You will get caught lady soon!!!!!
Another way to look at it. Why not 2 oversea factories bringing $20 million profit each instead of one $20 million and one $6million? (Other than everyone will hate your guts, of course. lol)
Or unless you're saying that the reason this foreign factory makes 20 million is because it saves costs for labour and maintenance. Plus there isn't a need for 3 factories.
Still, I don't see what the big deal is if it inevitably leads to cheaper prices.
@allmakescombined Back atcha: if you're going to build two factories (or however many) overseas, how is that STILL a reason to forego another $6 million in profits?
@shanedk I'm assuming the same supply to meet demand. If you have 3 factories when you only need two, you're producing too much, and one of those three wont be as profitable any more. I'm talking about the same amount of production in either scenario. Instead of making $26 million making 1 million baby dolls, you'd make $40 million making 1 million baby dolls if they were BOTH over seas, wouldn't you? Sure, bigger overhead, but won't the long term profits more than balance it out?
Which is what you CAN'T do, since the supply curve has now shifted to the right, and everything has changed. More will be produced and sold at lower prices.
@shanedk Well that's what I was looking for was an explanation. That makes more sense. BTW, I enjoyed your Bogus videos. Any chance of there being more?
@allmakescombined And just to clarify, there are more than two sides to this sort of thing. It can come down to what school of economics you ascribe to, or just how and how much you think the government should be involved in commerce, or whether or not free trade is inherently stable or unstable. GodlessInfinity, as far as I can tell, seems to ascribe to some old mercantilist ideas. Beyond that, I can't tell you. Shane's a minarchist with leanings in the Austrian school (cont.)
@allmakescombined (cont.), though he doesn't seem to disparage the use of models and such like many Austrians do. I range from minarchist to anarchist, depending on a variety of factors. Considering how far we are from even minarchy, anarchy doesn't seem to be a viable option by now. Let's just say that I'd love to see anarchy work, but I'll work towards minarchy for the time being. I'm somewhere between the Austrian and Monetarist (Chicago) schools of thought. (cont.)
@Virgil0211 "Considering how far we are from even minarchy, anarchy doesn't seem to be a viable option by now. Let's just say that I'd love to see anarchy work, but I'll work towards minarchy for the time being."
@allmakescombined vspqd is an anarchist, and I'm not quite sure what school of economics you could classify him into, if any. It's interesting how GodlessInfinity labeled all of us 'ideologues' without understanding our positions on the subject to begin with, though. It's a bit hard to be absolutely committed to an ideology when each of us has different ideas on the place of government in commerce, if any. =P
@allmakescombined There are also the more interventionist schools of economic thought, such as Keynesian, Post Keynesian, Marxist, Classical Synthesis or New Classical, Classical, etc. Classical has its roots in Adam Smith and his book 'The Wealth of Nations'. Keynesian has its roots in John Maynard Keynes' General Theory. Classical synthesis is something of a synthesis of classical, keynesian, and monetarist ideas into a single school of thought.
@allmakescombined And there are variances between these schools as well. Economics is a complicated topic, with a great many varying viewpoints and schools of thought.
Yes, let us blame all of our problems on Franklin Roosevelt, that idiot had no idea what he was doing, what a socialist, how dare he create Social Security Insurance to ensure that the elderly and infirmed would have an income to live off of in a world where not everyone has loving families and enough money to invest.
@rebelq1 Oh yes, let's end welfare and let all the infirmed and disabled die! That's your money Citizen! Yes it will leave millions with no source of income in an economy that's already facing a job shortage, yes people on welfare will stop paying their rent and buying from small businesses all across the country thus driving many landlords and small business owners out of business while increasing competition for jobs, yes crime and homelessness will sky rocket! Yes! We can do it! Yes we can!
@GodlessInfinity Yes, because only government can feed the poor, create jobs, and support businesses, because it's imbued with supernatural abilities. All hail the Cult of the Omnipotent State!
@shanedk Oh yes, let's just take away their only source of income and let the chips fall where they may, maybe they'll get lucky and be able to live in a homeless shelter out of a methodist church, or maybe they won't, but who cares? That's your money citizen. Yes sir, if they have no income that's their problem, not ours! Got mine, fuck you!
@shanedk Sure that will hit the land lords and small business owners hard because people on Welfare will suddenly stop paying their rent and buying their groceries, but who cares?
@shanedk The argument from adverse consequences is only a fallacy if the consequences do not logically follow or are irrelevant, the act of canceling social security insurance and disability would result in many elderly and disabled people having no source of income, without a source of income they would be unable to shop, pay rent, or pay bills (which would mean land lords and employers wouldn't get paid or would have to be let go), because they couldn't pay bills many would become homeless.
@GodlessInfinity And yours DO NOT FOLLOW. You are ignoring the fact that there is a HELL of a lot of money our government takes from people to fund these programs, and since these programs were implemented, these problems have gotten WORSE, reversing the trend of a CENTURY.
@shanedk Oh yes Shane, let's pretend it's a zero sum gain, let's pretend that people on SSI don't support demand side economics, let's pretend that land lords wouldn't lose tenants all over the nation if they suddenly stopped being able to pay their rent, let's pretend that people will buy more rolls of toilet paper than they could ever possibly use if only they didn't have to pay income taxes every year. Let's pretend all that money is just wasted on the poor.
@GodlessInfinity "Oh yes Shane, let's pretend it's a zero sum gain,"
That's zero-sum GAME, and YOU'RE the one doing that. You're saying that you can make this one change and absolutely nothing else anywhere will be any different.
@Virgil0211 Oh yes, mockery is every kind of fallacy, yes sir, I made all kinds of fallacies, you're not pointing to them directly or explaining how they're fallacies but they're there. They must be, I mean if we actually acknowledge that there are elderly and infirmed people in this country who's only source of income is social security insurance, and that there is a shortage of jobs, and that welfare spending does go to landlords and owners, oh wait, I'm throwing out logical fallacies right?
@shanedk What about the fact that millions of elderly people are in poverty? Oh that's right, logical fallacies only count when you're accusing others of them, not when you're making them. Yes, demographically elderly people may have more money, so let's take away social security from those who don't!
@shanedk Utter nonsense, demand side economics is what keeps suppliers in business. If there is no demand, or no purchasing power, that hurts the supply side.
@shanedk Shane, as a small business owner I'm intimately familiar with supply and demand, if I have more supply than demand, I often have wasted groceries, particularly spoiled milk. Where demand side economics does not match or exceed supply side economics producers or distributors face the very real risk of economic loss.
@shanedk Someone who REALLY understands supply and demand knows that if you have more supply than there is demand you risk profit loss. I gave an obvious example, if I order more milk than my customers demand then I'm left with excess milk, and since milk expires my chances of redeeming the waste are low. The flip side is obvious, if I order less milk than my customers demand then my customers will be forced to shop elsewhere for their milk, and I risk losing business, but demand drives business
@GodlessInfinity I think I get the problem now. The discussion is about the macro-level economy, yet you keep acting and arguing like it's the micro level, as if there were no distinction. I guess if you think your personal experience is all you need to participate in this debate, it's not surprising.
Take a few basic macro courses and come back later.
@shanedk I know, but I figured itd at least explain why he can't seem to grasp the conversation. He's not just wrong in the arguments, he's employing the wrong scope to begin with.
@GodlessInfinity No, YOU'RE the one denying it while I keep trying to explain it. Supply and demand are CURVES. What you are talking about is QUANTITY, which is DETERMINED BY THE PRICE LEVEL. In your example, the price mechanism would lower, and at that lower price the quantities would merge and the system would be in equilibrium.
You also keep denying that this exact same effect happens in the job market.
@shanedk Shane you clearly do not grasp supply and demand, as with everything you oversimplify it, ignoring a wide range of factors. This is very typical of you and ideologues like you, you're ignoring everything but shelf price.
@GodlessInfinity Sorry, but you're talking to people who have actually taken economics. Supply and demand are CURVES, not singular points. As supply increases, price decreases. The two shift along the curves towards the price point where quantity supplied = quantity demanded, barring price controls.
THIS is what we've been talking about, and what you've been ignoring.
@Virgil0211 The more I exchange with you people, the more convinced I become that you are making intentionally fallacious/irrelevant arguments simply to troll me. You're understanding of Supply and Demand is elementary level, as with so many other issues discussed here you grossly oversimplify the issue and ignore a wide range of factors and effects. If supply exceeds demand prices go down, the people producing/distributing the supply often lose money, and many goods have limited demand.
@GodlessInfinity Blah, blah, blah. More hollow posturing, especially considering that you haven't shown any understanding of how supply & demand relate to price & quantity until now. Name one 'factor/effect' that Shane or myself have ignored, with citations/quotations. Also, just for fun, specify whether said factors are endogeneous/exogeneous.
If they lost money, it would be temporary until they reduced production.
@Virgil0211 Virgil you clearly don't understand the complexities of the issue, you reduce everything to the logic "Cheaper=Better", I have given a variety of factors you fail to consider.
1: With perishable goods, over supply often results in a loss.
2: Limited Demand, because you ignore everything but price, one person will only buy so much of any given good.
3: Producer Loss, decreased price often means decreased profits for the producer, who has more difficulty finding distributors\
@GodlessInfinity 1: Only as long as the seller oversupplies. market suppliers who over-supply too often are eventually removed from the market due to profit loss, leaving those who best forecast consumer demand, much like evolution.
2. That's what a demand curve is, you dolt. The quantity demanded at any given price point. People will buy more of something if it's cheaper.
3. Only up to a certain point, assuming that said producer loss is due to a market with too many producers. (cont.)
@GodlessInfinity As suppliers exit the market and supply reduces, the price increases. This back and forth continues until the market reaches a kind of equilibrium.
And I haven't 'reduced everything to the logic of "Cheaper=Better". I've simply followed the logic 'more productive = better', as any rational human being would do.
No, the QUANTITY supplied exceeds QUANTITY demanded. Again, this isn't a nitpicky difference!
"the people producing/distributing the supply often lose money,"
No, IDIOT! The whole POINT of the supply curve is that that is the amount that firms CAN supply at that price level. Again, THE BASICS. The curve wouldn't be at that point if it's a loss!
@shanedk Shane when the quantity supplied exceeds the quantity demanded, particularly for perishable goods, either the producer or the distributor (or both) often end up at a loss. Why can't you understand this? If I buy 40 gallons of milk and my customers only demand 30 gallons of milk, I'm left with 10 gallons of milk each containing an expiration date. Unless the price I charge meets the price I paid, I am at a loss, and chances are they won't sell anyway.
@GodlessInfinity 'Unless the price I charge meets the price I paid, I am at a loss, and chances are they won't sell anyway.'
That assumes that you were selling your milk at cost to begin with. You also don't seem to be able to tell the difference between variable cost and sunk cost (something that a competent businessman should be familiar with). This is also, again, only temporary so long as you don't continue to buy too much milk. If you keep doing so, you'll be kicked out of the market.
@Virgil0211 Again there is more to supply and demand than the shelf cost of goods. You assume that as long as prices are low, the goods will move off the shelf, the example I gave with the milk is a very clear cut example and you are intentionally obfuscating it, I always buy slightly more milk than I can sell because it's better to have slightly more supply than demand, but if there is no demand my products do not move from the shelves no matter how cheap they are.
@GodlessInfinity I'm not discussing shelf cost, but market price. Remember, this is macro-economics, not micro. And, as I said before, you would only lose money so long as the excess inventory cost more than your profit margin. If you continued to make these kinds of mistakes, then your losses would eventually push you out of the market to make room for someone who wasn't as stupid.
@GodlessInfinity Let's use your example. Assume that demand is zero. This would mean that your products wouldn't sell at any price. In that case, any attempt to sell said products would result in a loss until you stopped supplying the product. If you continued to try supplying the product, you would lose money until you no longer had the funds to continue participating in the marketplace.
And again, you're ignoring the difference between sunk costs and variable costs.
@Virgil0211 Ok I see where you're going with this, your premise is that oversupply of a product reduces cost of the product, thus savings get passed on to the consumer (assuming there isn't mark up), and thus the consumer has more to spend, and that spending is good for the economy. So even though the producer, or the distributor if the over supply is on his end, still runs at a loss, it's not a macro-economic problem, it's a problem for the individual producer/distributor, Cont
^ But this goes back to third world labor exploitation, local producers are in direct competition with foreign producers. Savings passed on to the consumer are certainly good for demand economics because it allows more demand in other areas, but the crux of the problem is that the local population demands more jobs than there is supply (the real reason we started talking about supply and demand), there's too much worker redundancy, too many of our workers are being replaced or rendered obsolete.
@GodlessInfinity Unless you use an incorrect/outdated theory of labor value, you cannot argue worker exploitation. And, once again, you're assuming that wages are 100% immobile.
And don't try the obsolete route. Typewriter mechanics were replaced and made obsolete when the computer and word processors became the norm. Is that a bad thing? No. The increased productivity has resulted in a net increase in jobs and income, making everyone more wealthy.
@GodlessInfinity Wrong, once again. It's not just the consumer surplus, but the reduced cost of doing business. And once again, you're treating supply and demand as points rather than curves that can adjust. In addition (once again), you're only accounting for short-term effects while negating long term effects.
@GodlessInfinity "oversupply of a product reduces cost of the product, thus savings get passed on to the consumer (assuming there isn't mark up)"
No, idiot, there WON'T BE a mark-up, since ANY mark-up from that would result in the same surplus. Again, BASIC supply and demand. The price gets set at equilibrium.
@GodlessInfinity No, in such a case, the price of milk lowers. The system is in balance.
And besides, that's not supply being greater than demand; it's quantity produced being greater than quantity consumed. There's a BIG difference, and it's NOT a nitpicky one.
@shanedk Shane, there's only so much demand for milk, no matter what the price is no one is going to come in and buy several gallons of milk that's two days from the expiration date. If you over stock, especially on perishables, you lose money. I've been running this business for four and a half years and I went through some serious growing pains getting this. Your fallacy is that you assume the only factor driving demand is the shelf price of goods.
@GodlessInfinity "Shane, there's only so much demand for milk, no matter what the price is"
Thank you for showing you're a completely clueless moron when it comes to supply and demand. The demand curve is DOWNWARD-SLOPING, meaning that as price lowers, quantity demanded INCREASES. It IS based on price.
(You also are apparently too stupid to realize that milk is good for 7 days after the sell-by date, and that there are lots of recipes for things made with spoiled milk.)
@shanedk Oh and let's please ignore the job shortage, let's imagine that throwing millions of elderly and disabled people into the job market wouldn't increase job competition, let's pretend that all those elderly and disabled people would just be fine if they had no source of income, or better yet, let's blame them if they don't have family who can support them, and let's pretend they wouldn't go homeless if they couldn't pay their rent. You're such an amazing economist and insightful person.
@GodlessInfinity What, you mean the job shortage that your holy cult leaders in government created?
There was one time in history when this claim was made: after WWII, when government dogmatists like you insisted that 10 million troops coming back home would result in massive unemployment. It didn't--just the opposite, in fact, as predicted by all of the economists who actually understood Say's Law.
@shanedk Oh yes let's ignore everything else that lead to this job shortage and blame it all on big bad government. Yes they're my holy cult leaders alright, I sure love me some government, after all I support a constitutionally limited government and have actual arguments for why canceling social security would be a bad idea which you can't even address apparently, sure loves me some government. Oh yessir, I'm a government dogmatist, I must be why else would I support Social Security Insurance?
@rebelq1 Oh yes, because we see that all time don't we? Yup, let grandma live in a homeless shelter and eat watered down soup, that's much more efficient! Sucks for grandma, but it's more efficient.
^ Aside from the fact that grandma isn't out spending, which is bad for demand side economics, which fuels supply side economics, which is the core of wealth creation.
@GodlessInfinity The amount government takes in in revenues is over half of the National Income. That's a FACT. No amount of bleating on your part will change that--nor will bringing up irrelevancies about how much he earns.
@shanedk Ohhhh around half of the NATIONAL income, not over half of YOUR income. I see. Fact is, we spend on a lot of things, obsolete military bases in europe that serve no strategic purpose, the mating habits of racoons, highways to nowhere and all kinds of other pet projects. If we trim the fat taxes can be reduced dramatically, but Social Security Insurance isn't fat, there are millions of elderly disabled and infirmed people who's lives depend on that.
@GodlessInfinity The three things that make up the bulk of the budget are military spending, Social Security, and Medicare. Together, they're TWO-THIRDS of the budget.
@GodlessInfinity "Oh yes let's ignore everything else that lead to this job shortage"
No, YOU'RE doing that. Capitalists are evil, and they created this job shortage because of their extreme hate (even though any one of them would LOVE to be able to employ every single one of these people to create more products and services and make even more money).
No, it had NOTHING to do with the government's credit bubble, or inflationary monetary policy, or runaway deficit spending...
@shanedk No, you capitalist cultist are just stupid, capitalism isn't evil it's just an economic model, it's you people who have bastardized capitalism and turned it into a religion, I recognize that it has it's strengths and weaknesses and think about how best to exploit the strengths and compensate for the weaknesses. I don't exult any economic system like you do. But I must be a complete socialist if I speak out in favor of social programs right? Government is to blame for everything!
@shanedk Let's also ignore all of the other factors that have contributed to our economic situation, such as globalization which has put american workers in direct competition with desperate dalits who will work for twelve hours for twelve cents an hour, or such as mainstream automation which has made the workforce increasingly redundant, or predatory lending practices by banks purposely farming self compounding credit debt, or the consolidation of a few large businesses reducing worker demand.
@GodlessInfinity by having electronics made by people who "work for twelve hours for 12 cents an hour" it makes the products made by those people a lot cheaper and affordable, therefore more people buy them, hence creating jobs.
By your logic, think about all the unemployment caused by machines!!
@donttreadonmyass Oh yes cheaper for the people running the sweatshops, but there's still substantial mark up, and even if the goods are more affordable to the general, the toll in human suffering is high, unemployment in America rises because american workers can't compete with desperate sweat shop labor (give it a few years). Sure it creates jobs, but often not in America. And no by my logic unemployment is cause by a variety of factors and only an idiot would oversimplify it like that.
@GodlessInfinity When has it EVER been shown that an influx of cheaper labor resulted in higher unemployment? This is what they said about Irish and Chinese immigrants, but it DIDN'T HAPPEN--there were MORE jobs, and BETTER jobs available as a result.
And YOU'RE the one oversimplifying the concept of unemployment! "DEY TOOK AWR JAWBZ!!!!" Go see my video on the subject.
@shanedk Oh gee I don't know WHEN THE INFLUX OF CHEAP LABOR IS OVER SEAS AND IN DIRECT COMPETITION WITH DOMESTIC WORK FORCES? We're not talking about immigrants coming to america and working dirt cheap, those are American jobs, we're talking about the wealth creation leaving America because desperate dalits will work for twelve hours a day seven days a week for twelve cents an hour just so their kids can have a loaf of bread to go with their rat every week.
@GodlessInfinity "Oh gee I don't know WHEN THE INFLUX OF CHEAP LABOR IS OVER SEAS AND IN DIRECT COMPETITION WITH DOMESTIC WORK FORCES"
That's not how competition works, idiot. Say's Law. Look it up.
This is your magical thinking: you acknowledge that you're wrong with regards to immigrants, but still insist that you're right with foreign workers. Yet, the ONLY difference between the two is which side of an arbitrarily-drawn border line they're on.
@shanedk Shane, you don't understand what competition is. When goods are produced in india and sold in america by american companies, those goods compete with american manufactured goods (thus american producers are in competition with indian producers). When in India starving dalits will work for twelve hours a day at twelve cents an hour seven days a week, and the American worker expects to have some dignity, companies with the infrastructure will often outsource labor. It's a know issue.
@GodlessInfinity Which means the goods are produced at lower costs, which drives the prices of said goods down, meaning people don't have to spend as much money on them, meaning that they can spend money on other goods, meaning that companies will increase production of those goods, meaning that more jobs will be made relative to those goods.
@shanedk In regards to immigrants, how am I wrong with regards to them? Oh do you mean when I mentioned that the American population keeps growing due to immigration, in a climate were jobs are becoming more scarce, creating more competition for jobs among americans? No, you imagined I was complaining about the intentional and often illegal exploitation of illegal immigrants, and seemed to misunderstand or intentionally ignore the actual problem I was speaking of.
@GodlessInfinity Straw man, yet again. It doesn't matter whether or not the 'immigrants are exploited', as you so eloquently put it. What matters is their effect on the labor market. There are three examples (the Irish, the Chinese, and soldiers coming home after WWII) which directly contradict your assertions. Instead of acknowledging this, you have attempted to handwave the problem away and insist that people are just deliberately misunderstanding your point.
@shanedk They're also completely irrelevant to my point and since I pointed that out and you keep focusing on immigrants rather than foreign workers, an obvious straw man.
@GodlessInfinity No, we've been pointing out a problem with the basis of your argument. Discarding a flawed element of your argument isn't straw-manning. The comment you just made, where you characterized our attempts to correct you as a straw man is, in fact, the real straw man. Ironic, isn't it?
@shanedk The immigration issue was only brought up to express that our population is increasing, which is increasing competition for jobs. Increased competition for jobs means more people will not be accepted for work. The rest of the nonsense you bring up has nothing to do with my point, and seems to be an obfuscation of the broader issue, which only includes population growth as a single contributing factor.
@GodlessInfinity Wrong. If there were more laborers than jobs, the price would drop (ie wages), which would make more jobs and cheaper labor. This would result in greater production, which in the end would result in greater wages and productivity (and if I have to explain this to you again, I'm going to strangle my pillow).
@GodlessInfinity "The immigration issue was only brought up to express that our population is increasing, which is increasing competition for jobs."
Yes, brought up BY YOU, to support YOUR claims. Then I asked why that wasn't the case with the Irish and Chinese immigrants. Then you started bleating on about how I was talking about illegal immigrants when I wasn't. YOU ARE A LIAR.
@shanedk But YOU brought up the irrelevant strawman of "MEXICAN WORKERS DONE TOOK MY JORB" When my actual point was "Increased population means increased competition for jobs, which contributes to unemployment"
@GodlessInfinity That assumes that wages don't adjust to compensate. It's comments like these which demonstrate your complete inability to comprehend supply & demand.
@GodlessInfinity Once again, you demonstrate ignorance of how the demand curve works. The demand curve accounts for consumer preferences and the amount of money the purchaser has. It forecasts how the consumer will decide to spend their money when a product is priced a certain way. At $5, they may wish to buy three items. At $3, they may wish to buy six. At $1, 8. If consumer preferences/disposable income changes, then the curve shifts to account for this. Surely, you should know that.
@vspqbd The whole conversation spiraled out because he constantly responded to strawmen of my arguments or went on irrelevant tangents ignoring the true substance of what I said (For example, when I pointed out that it's difficult for first world labor forces to compete with desperate third world workers, he ignored my point and started talking about how said third worlders now have an extremely modest source of income).
@shanedk No it isn't what I said, at this point you are lying, or perhaps imagining positions I do not hold. You responded to a position I did not state, you completely twisted and misrepresented what I did state. Perhaps you lack the intellect to see the difference between your straw man and an honest assessment that an increasing american population (to which immigration is a factor) coupled with outsourcing and globalization is leading to increased competition for jobs during a job shortage
@GodlessInfinity Which is wrong, because you're not taking supply & demand into account. What you're referring to would shift the supply curve to the right, increasing quantity and decreasing price. The only way your scenario would lead to unemployment would be in the existence of a legal price barrier, such as minimum wage, which wouldn't exist on a free market.
@GodlessInfinity "The immigration issue was only brought up to express that our population is increasing, which is increasing competition for jobs"
that has nothing to do with immigrants, this could have to do with an increasing population in general. By your logic there should be less jobs in 2007 than 1980 since the population increased from 226 million to 300 million.
@GodlessInfinity I said NOTHING about legal or illegal immigrants. Once again, you're just lying to avoid the fact that you've been shown to be wrong.
@vspqbd You seem unaware that I am not a state worshiping socialist, and appear to be projecting a mirror inversion of your blind faith in ideological economic purism onto me. Also outsourcing occures largely because desperate third world labor is cheaper than dignified first world labor, and in a lot of desperate third world countries you can dump toxic waste wherever you want and pay no heed to the environment, in America we don't like getting sick and dying from pollution or being coerced.
^ Unfortunately some level of coercion will always exist in human society, regardless of economic system, because humans will not always agree on what is acceptable or what is necessary.
@GodlessInfinity 'Also outsourcing occures largely because desperate third world labor is cheaper than dignified first world labor, and in a lot of desperate third world countries you can dump toxic waste wherever you want and pay no heed to the environment, in America we don't like getting sick and dying from pollution or being coerced.'
Straw man, appeal to ridicule, and not to mention just plain wrong.
@vspqbd I already understand psychological projection and was applying it correctly, I'm aware that there are more refined definitions that do not apply, but I was using the broader definition Sigmund Freud coined in observing patients projecting their own traits and characteristics onto others, often with a cognitive dissonance in which they either failed to recognize that they themselves held the traits they were projecting (such as worshiping purest economic ideology) or denying their traits.
@vspqbd True, but to a large part irrelevant. If outsourcing occurs because of market forces, it means that labor resources at home are freed up to be used on other things.
On the other hand, the state passing regulations and making it more expensive to do business is destructive, regardless of whether the jobs go overseas or they're just lost.
Why not just spend it all on beneficiaries?
Kan2209 3 days ago
@Kan2209 They should, of course, but it still won't work. See the follow-up.
shanedk 3 days ago
@lazarokim36 What format does it require?
shanedk 3 days ago
Unusual remarks on this video yet again.
carrollbarn1026 1 month ago
Yes, I do believe that they should spend that money rightfully but as a libertarian do you support privatizing Social Security. I think we need a less pro-corporation and a more pro-democratic and pro-people government.
We need the government to de facto be the people and be a socialist one.
Yes, I did watch the video.
ComradeMr 6 months ago
@ComradeMr "I think we need a less pro-corporation and a more pro-democratic and pro-people government."
Sorry, no such thing.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Sorry, what? Corporations are the enemy of the people. They do whatever for their profit and their shareholders instead of the customers.
ComradeMr 6 months ago
@ComradeMr Oh, I'm sorry--I didn't realize you were a paranoid wingnut! I'll not bother trying to argue rationally with you then...
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk No, it's truth. Corporations are for profit only, that is their purpose. What do you think it's for, why do you think Goldman Saches gets all that money from the government? Goldman Saches knows that the people aren't paying for it so the government OPENLY gives money to the corporations.
It's not paranoid wingnutry, it's facts.
ComradeMr 6 months ago
@ComradeMr "Corporations are for profit only"
Everything you do is for profit. You work a job for profit, you hang out with your friends for profit, you watch TV for profit--because you consider the value you get for ALL of those things to be greater than the costs. Complaining about others doing the same thing is blatant hypocrisy.
The problem is GOVERNMENT. You even said so!
shanedk 6 months ago
@ComradeMr I somewhat agree with you. Corporations are the enemy and they do it all for profit. Profit is just a financial state it has nothing to do with what shanedk mentioned. In a sense it wouldn't be right to have a "people" government, because the people aren't really the ones that make the better decisions. I mean even if you get rid of corporations there's always gonna be some idiot trying to take the cake. You can't trust the idiots walking around. Society needs to change.
DistortedFaiths 3 months ago
So, its a fraudulent indirect tax?
Why don't they just be upfront about it and take it directly out of the Treasury from the income tax budget as a legitimate State expense of running a stable and just society and distribute it on a needs-based, assets-tested basis?
Why the trickery?
GONZO66656 6 months ago
@GONZO66656 Actually, it's a direct tax, taken out of paychecks separately from Income Tax.
There is another bit of trickery to it: they only take out half of it from your paycheck; they make your employer pay the other half to disguise how much they're really taking. If you're self-employed, you pay the whole thing yourself.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
If there is to be a separate system, it would need to be isolated from government coffers. Like the superannuation system we have in Australia. Employers (not employees) pay 9% directly into the employees' (independent) superannuation accounts as a long term (life long) investment plan. A lump sum (or a regular stipend) is then paid to retirees. Government pensions (asset tested) are still available to those that don't have super. I think that is roughly what you are advocating - yes?
GONZO66656 6 months ago
@GONZO66656 I think the system in Chile works a lot better, actually.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
What do they do there?
GONZO66656 6 months ago
@GONZO66656 Check out my podcast; I covered it in an episode.
shanedk 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama takes $40billion dollars from social security.. You work for GE or Daves bake shop they tax deduct your money calling Social Security Union Tax. Dave sets on Welfare and you work. Dave lauges while he calls you a scab. You paid nothing. A federal workers own child is a excuse for govt. to deposit large sums of money in social security to make it strong as McDonalds called it a loss on the W2 form. Where is the $40billion I guess Obama has got this in the bag. politics did not pay
redviper2GAMER 8 months ago
"I just want to tell the objective truth about how government policies work." Regardless of your views on social security, it is not really objective if you frame the program as a Ponzi scheme. Even if that is your conclusion, you should explain how the program works, how it is abused and then present and defend your claim that it is a Ponzi scheme. Just sayin...this wasn't objective.
iwunz3 11 months ago
@iwunz3 "Even if that is your conclusion, you should explain how the program works,"
I did.
"how it is abused"
I did!
"and then present and defend your claim that it is a Ponzi scheme."
I DID!!!
Geez...did you even WATCH the video???
shanedk 11 months ago 5
Stand up 4 your RIGHTS Americans.~ The REPUBLICANS have been FOOLING YOU for the last 30 yrs. SOCIAL SECURITY*, (SS) , is NOT an entitlement! SS HAS A $2.6 TRILLION SURPLUS. SS CAN pay every claim at least until 2030.~ SS DOES NOT increase the federal budget by one cent! Tell the REPUBLICAN GANGSTERS & THEIR WALLSTREET BANDIT FRIENDS that you will FIGHT any PRIVATIZATION OF your SS pension~You will FIGHT ANY REDUCTION IN BENEFITS. YOU will FIGHT any change in AGE REQUIREMENT FOR SS BENEFITS!
poindexterwitkowsky 11 months ago 5
@poindexterwitkowsky If all that's true, then how come the SS Trustees have confirmed that this year for the first time SS will be running a deficit?
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk
So, its a fraudulent indirect tax?
Why don't they just be upfront about it and take it directly out of the Treasury from the income tax budget as a legitimate State expense of running a stable and just society and distribute it on a needs-based, assets-tested basis?
Why the trickery?
GONZO66656 6 months ago
@poindexterwitkowsky
Then explain the >$10 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
vspqbd 11 months ago
@poindexterwitkowsky
I LIKE TO TALK LIKE THIS BECAUSE IT MAKES WHAT IM SAYING SEEM MORE RELEVANT. Don't do that.
philoshophywelch 11 months ago
@poindexterwitkowsky Caps lock is cruise control for cool.
Micro8Bit 11 months ago
@poindexterwitkowsky So how is it not a Ponzi scheme? Again, can you factually prove that it's not? Here's a little FYI, BOTH Democrats and Republicans have spent Social Security funds. If you could just answer those simple question, you would make me a believer for SS.
1czelaya 5 months ago
Thanks for this post of how bad the SS is and how messed up it is because of fraud and abuse in the system. I met a lady that was getting 4 checks on a bus in Cornelius Oregon that cursed me out for no reason because she had to go to a booze treatment program at Danville. Lady yell at someone else that can do something abut it and not me I did nothing. You do not deserve 4 checks. You jumped off the bus and had nothing physically wrong. You will get caught lady soon!!!!!
PamelaRP 1 year ago
Another way to look at it. Why not 2 oversea factories bringing $20 million profit each instead of one $20 million and one $6million? (Other than everyone will hate your guts, of course. lol)
allmakescombined 1 year ago
@allmakescombined
Or unless you're saying that the reason this foreign factory makes 20 million is because it saves costs for labour and maintenance. Plus there isn't a need for 3 factories.
Still, I don't see what the big deal is if it inevitably leads to cheaper prices.
mike19371937 1 year ago
@allmakescombined Back atcha: if you're going to build two factories (or however many) overseas, how is that STILL a reason to forego another $6 million in profits?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I'm assuming the same supply to meet demand. If you have 3 factories when you only need two, you're producing too much, and one of those three wont be as profitable any more. I'm talking about the same amount of production in either scenario. Instead of making $26 million making 1 million baby dolls, you'd make $40 million making 1 million baby dolls if they were BOTH over seas, wouldn't you? Sure, bigger overhead, but won't the long term profits more than balance it out?
allmakescombined 1 year ago
@allmakescombined "I'm assuming the same supply to meet demand."
Which is what you CAN'T do, since the supply curve has now shifted to the right, and everything has changed. More will be produced and sold at lower prices.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Well that's what I was looking for was an explanation. That makes more sense. BTW, I enjoyed your Bogus videos. Any chance of there being more?
allmakescombined 1 year ago
@allmakescombined When I get a hell of a lot more free time. They're incredibly difficult and time-consuming to make.
shanedk 1 year ago
Comment removed
allmakescombined 1 year ago
Reminder: I don't know enough to really have an opinion, I'm just trying to learn the reasoning of both sides here. heh
allmakescombined 1 year ago
@allmakescombined No worries. I'm sorry if I came off as a bit callous there.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@allmakescombined And just to clarify, there are more than two sides to this sort of thing. It can come down to what school of economics you ascribe to, or just how and how much you think the government should be involved in commerce, or whether or not free trade is inherently stable or unstable. GodlessInfinity, as far as I can tell, seems to ascribe to some old mercantilist ideas. Beyond that, I can't tell you. Shane's a minarchist with leanings in the Austrian school (cont.)
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@allmakescombined (cont.), though he doesn't seem to disparage the use of models and such like many Austrians do. I range from minarchist to anarchist, depending on a variety of factors. Considering how far we are from even minarchy, anarchy doesn't seem to be a viable option by now. Let's just say that I'd love to see anarchy work, but I'll work towards minarchy for the time being. I'm somewhere between the Austrian and Monetarist (Chicago) schools of thought. (cont.)
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211 "Considering how far we are from even minarchy, anarchy doesn't seem to be a viable option by now. Let's just say that I'd love to see anarchy work, but I'll work towards minarchy for the time being."
My sentiments precisely.
shanedk 1 year ago
Comment removed
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd Why?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Maybe to get back at me for the time I put him in fail quotes. =P I'll just take it in stride.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211
Maybe. :P
vspqbd 1 year ago
@allmakescombined vspqd is an anarchist, and I'm not quite sure what school of economics you could classify him into, if any. It's interesting how GodlessInfinity labeled all of us 'ideologues' without understanding our positions on the subject to begin with, though. It's a bit hard to be absolutely committed to an ideology when each of us has different ideas on the place of government in commerce, if any. =P
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211
"vspqbd is an anarchist, and I'm not quite sure what school of economics you could classify him into, if any."
For the record, I consider myself a part of the Austrian School of Economics.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@allmakescombined There are also the more interventionist schools of economic thought, such as Keynesian, Post Keynesian, Marxist, Classical Synthesis or New Classical, Classical, etc. Classical has its roots in Adam Smith and his book 'The Wealth of Nations'. Keynesian has its roots in John Maynard Keynes' General Theory. Classical synthesis is something of a synthesis of classical, keynesian, and monetarist ideas into a single school of thought.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@allmakescombined And there are variances between these schools as well. Economics is a complicated topic, with a great many varying viewpoints and schools of thought.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
Yes, let us blame all of our problems on Franklin Roosevelt, that idiot had no idea what he was doing, what a socialist, how dare he create Social Security Insurance to ensure that the elderly and infirmed would have an income to live off of in a world where not everyone has loving families and enough money to invest.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
Comment removed
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
Death to senior citizens! Death to the disabled! End Welfare 2012!
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity
You can't be serious about that!
rebelq1 1 year ago
@rebelq1 Oh yes, let's end welfare and let all the infirmed and disabled die! That's your money Citizen! Yes it will leave millions with no source of income in an economy that's already facing a job shortage, yes people on welfare will stop paying their rent and buying from small businesses all across the country thus driving many landlords and small business owners out of business while increasing competition for jobs, yes crime and homelessness will sky rocket! Yes! We can do it! Yes we can!
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Yes, because only government can feed the poor, create jobs, and support businesses, because it's imbued with supernatural abilities. All hail the Cult of the Omnipotent State!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Oh yes, let's just take away their only source of income and let the chips fall where they may, maybe they'll get lucky and be able to live in a homeless shelter out of a methodist church, or maybe they won't, but who cares? That's your money citizen. Yes sir, if they have no income that's their problem, not ours! Got mine, fuck you!
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@shanedk Sure that will hit the land lords and small business owners hard because people on Welfare will suddenly stop paying their rent and buying their groceries, but who cares?
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Go look up the fallacy "Argument from Adverse Consequences."
"If we didn't believe in God, we'd all be selfish and greedy and violent!" One more way statists are like the ultra-religious...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The argument from adverse consequences is only a fallacy if the consequences do not logically follow or are irrelevant, the act of canceling social security insurance and disability would result in many elderly and disabled people having no source of income, without a source of income they would be unable to shop, pay rent, or pay bills (which would mean land lords and employers wouldn't get paid or would have to be let go), because they couldn't pay bills many would become homeless.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity And yours DO NOT FOLLOW. You are ignoring the fact that there is a HELL of a lot of money our government takes from people to fund these programs, and since these programs were implemented, these problems have gotten WORSE, reversing the trend of a CENTURY.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Case in point, the poverty rates before Johnson's Great Society.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@shanedk Oh yes Shane, let's pretend it's a zero sum gain, let's pretend that people on SSI don't support demand side economics, let's pretend that land lords wouldn't lose tenants all over the nation if they suddenly stopped being able to pay their rent, let's pretend that people will buy more rolls of toilet paper than they could ever possibly use if only they didn't have to pay income taxes every year. Let's pretend all that money is just wasted on the poor.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "Oh yes Shane, let's pretend it's a zero sum gain,"
That's zero-sum GAME, and YOU'RE the one doing that. You're saying that you can make this one change and absolutely nothing else anywhere will be any different.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Oh woe I made a Typo, I told you typos were evil, sometimes people type the wrong words isn't that terrible?
No I'm not pretending it's a zero sum game, I'm saying it's good for demand side economics.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity diversion, straw man fallacy.
Wow. I can't read a single comment of yours without catching a fallacy. Seems you can't debate honestly.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211 Oh yes, mockery is every kind of fallacy, yes sir, I made all kinds of fallacies, you're not pointing to them directly or explaining how they're fallacies but they're there. They must be, I mean if we actually acknowledge that there are elderly and infirmed people in this country who's only source of income is social security insurance, and that there is a shortage of jobs, and that welfare spending does go to landlords and owners, oh wait, I'm throwing out logical fallacies right?
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
^ Business owners even.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity What about the fact that the elderly are the richest demographic in America?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk What about the fact that millions of elderly people are in poverty? Oh that's right, logical fallacies only count when you're accusing others of them, not when you're making them. Yes, demographically elderly people may have more money, so let's take away social security from those who don't!
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Demand-side economics was shown to be complete bunk in the 1970s.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Utter nonsense, demand side economics is what keeps suppliers in business. If there is no demand, or no purchasing power, that hurts the supply side.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity REAL economists understand that demand and supply are ultimately the same thing.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Shane, as a small business owner I'm intimately familiar with supply and demand, if I have more supply than demand, I often have wasted groceries, particularly spoiled milk. Where demand side economics does not match or exceed supply side economics producers or distributors face the very real risk of economic loss.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Similar assertions that could be made.
'I'm an economist, so I would automatically have all the banking laws memorized.'
'I'm an engineer, so I would be intimately familiar with theoretical physics'
'I'm a biologist, so I don't need to go to medical school to practice medicine.'
It's an argument from authority fallacy, and a weak one even at that.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "if I have more supply than demand"
See, someone who REALLY understands supply and demand knows you can't compare the two this way.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Someone who REALLY understands supply and demand knows that if you have more supply than there is demand you risk profit loss. I gave an obvious example, if I order more milk than my customers demand then I'm left with excess milk, and since milk expires my chances of redeeming the waste are low. The flip side is obvious, if I order less milk than my customers demand then my customers will be forced to shop elsewhere for their milk, and I risk losing business, but demand drives business
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity I think I get the problem now. The discussion is about the macro-level economy, yet you keep acting and arguing like it's the micro level, as if there were no distinction. I guess if you think your personal experience is all you need to participate in this debate, it's not surprising.
Take a few basic macro courses and come back later.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211 He's not even right on the micro level. He just doesn't get the idea that supply and demand are both curves, not fixed values.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I know, but I figured itd at least explain why he can't seem to grasp the conversation. He's not just wrong in the arguments, he's employing the wrong scope to begin with.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@shanedk Shane I know that the value of things changes, that's part of the problem. You're sitting there denying supply and demand.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity No, YOU'RE the one denying it while I keep trying to explain it. Supply and demand are CURVES. What you are talking about is QUANTITY, which is DETERMINED BY THE PRICE LEVEL. In your example, the price mechanism would lower, and at that lower price the quantities would merge and the system would be in equilibrium.
You also keep denying that this exact same effect happens in the job market.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Shane you clearly do not grasp supply and demand, as with everything you oversimplify it, ignoring a wide range of factors. This is very typical of you and ideologues like you, you're ignoring everything but shelf price.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity YOU'RE the one ignoring the price mechanism.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk No I'm not, you're simply ignoring everything else
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Sorry, but you're talking to people who have actually taken economics. Supply and demand are CURVES, not singular points. As supply increases, price decreases. The two shift along the curves towards the price point where quantity supplied = quantity demanded, barring price controls.
THIS is what we've been talking about, and what you've been ignoring.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211 The more I exchange with you people, the more convinced I become that you are making intentionally fallacious/irrelevant arguments simply to troll me. You're understanding of Supply and Demand is elementary level, as with so many other issues discussed here you grossly oversimplify the issue and ignore a wide range of factors and effects. If supply exceeds demand prices go down, the people producing/distributing the supply often lose money, and many goods have limited demand.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Blah, blah, blah. More hollow posturing, especially considering that you haven't shown any understanding of how supply & demand relate to price & quantity until now. Name one 'factor/effect' that Shane or myself have ignored, with citations/quotations. Also, just for fun, specify whether said factors are endogeneous/exogeneous.
If they lost money, it would be temporary until they reduced production.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211 Virgil you clearly don't understand the complexities of the issue, you reduce everything to the logic "Cheaper=Better", I have given a variety of factors you fail to consider.
1: With perishable goods, over supply often results in a loss.
2: Limited Demand, because you ignore everything but price, one person will only buy so much of any given good.
3: Producer Loss, decreased price often means decreased profits for the producer, who has more difficulty finding distributors\
ect
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity 1: Only as long as the seller oversupplies. market suppliers who over-supply too often are eventually removed from the market due to profit loss, leaving those who best forecast consumer demand, much like evolution.
2. That's what a demand curve is, you dolt. The quantity demanded at any given price point. People will buy more of something if it's cheaper.
3. Only up to a certain point, assuming that said producer loss is due to a market with too many producers. (cont.)
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity As suppliers exit the market and supply reduces, the price increases. This back and forth continues until the market reaches a kind of equilibrium.
And I haven't 'reduced everything to the logic of "Cheaper=Better". I've simply followed the logic 'more productive = better', as any rational human being would do.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "If supply exceeds demand prices go down,"
No, the QUANTITY supplied exceeds QUANTITY demanded. Again, this isn't a nitpicky difference!
"the people producing/distributing the supply often lose money,"
No, IDIOT! The whole POINT of the supply curve is that that is the amount that firms CAN supply at that price level. Again, THE BASICS. The curve wouldn't be at that point if it's a loss!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Shane when the quantity supplied exceeds the quantity demanded, particularly for perishable goods, either the producer or the distributor (or both) often end up at a loss. Why can't you understand this? If I buy 40 gallons of milk and my customers only demand 30 gallons of milk, I'm left with 10 gallons of milk each containing an expiration date. Unless the price I charge meets the price I paid, I am at a loss, and chances are they won't sell anyway.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity 'Unless the price I charge meets the price I paid, I am at a loss, and chances are they won't sell anyway.'
That assumes that you were selling your milk at cost to begin with. You also don't seem to be able to tell the difference between variable cost and sunk cost (something that a competent businessman should be familiar with). This is also, again, only temporary so long as you don't continue to buy too much milk. If you keep doing so, you'll be kicked out of the market.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211 Again there is more to supply and demand than the shelf cost of goods. You assume that as long as prices are low, the goods will move off the shelf, the example I gave with the milk is a very clear cut example and you are intentionally obfuscating it, I always buy slightly more milk than I can sell because it's better to have slightly more supply than demand, but if there is no demand my products do not move from the shelves no matter how cheap they are.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity I'm not discussing shelf cost, but market price. Remember, this is macro-economics, not micro. And, as I said before, you would only lose money so long as the excess inventory cost more than your profit margin. If you continued to make these kinds of mistakes, then your losses would eventually push you out of the market to make room for someone who wasn't as stupid.
(cont.)
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Let's use your example. Assume that demand is zero. This would mean that your products wouldn't sell at any price. In that case, any attempt to sell said products would result in a loss until you stopped supplying the product. If you continued to try supplying the product, you would lose money until you no longer had the funds to continue participating in the marketplace.
And again, you're ignoring the difference between sunk costs and variable costs.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211 Ok I see where you're going with this, your premise is that oversupply of a product reduces cost of the product, thus savings get passed on to the consumer (assuming there isn't mark up), and thus the consumer has more to spend, and that spending is good for the economy. So even though the producer, or the distributor if the over supply is on his end, still runs at a loss, it's not a macro-economic problem, it's a problem for the individual producer/distributor, Cont
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
^ But this goes back to third world labor exploitation, local producers are in direct competition with foreign producers. Savings passed on to the consumer are certainly good for demand economics because it allows more demand in other areas, but the crux of the problem is that the local population demands more jobs than there is supply (the real reason we started talking about supply and demand), there's too much worker redundancy, too many of our workers are being replaced or rendered obsolete.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Unless you use an incorrect/outdated theory of labor value, you cannot argue worker exploitation. And, once again, you're assuming that wages are 100% immobile.
And don't try the obsolete route. Typewriter mechanics were replaced and made obsolete when the computer and word processors became the norm. Is that a bad thing? No. The increased productivity has resulted in a net increase in jobs and income, making everyone more wealthy.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Wrong, once again. It's not just the consumer surplus, but the reduced cost of doing business. And once again, you're treating supply and demand as points rather than curves that can adjust. In addition (once again), you're only accounting for short-term effects while negating long term effects.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "oversupply of a product reduces cost of the product, thus savings get passed on to the consumer (assuming there isn't mark up)"
No, idiot, there WON'T BE a mark-up, since ANY mark-up from that would result in the same surplus. Again, BASIC supply and demand. The price gets set at equilibrium.
shanedk 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity No, in such a case, the price of milk lowers. The system is in balance.
And besides, that's not supply being greater than demand; it's quantity produced being greater than quantity consumed. There's a BIG difference, and it's NOT a nitpicky one.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Shane, there's only so much demand for milk, no matter what the price is no one is going to come in and buy several gallons of milk that's two days from the expiration date. If you over stock, especially on perishables, you lose money. I've been running this business for four and a half years and I went through some serious growing pains getting this. Your fallacy is that you assume the only factor driving demand is the shelf price of goods.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
^ getting the hang of this
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "Shane, there's only so much demand for milk, no matter what the price is"
Thank you for showing you're a completely clueless moron when it comes to supply and demand. The demand curve is DOWNWARD-SLOPING, meaning that as price lowers, quantity demanded INCREASES. It IS based on price.
(You also are apparently too stupid to realize that milk is good for 7 days after the sell-by date, and that there are lots of recipes for things made with spoiled milk.)
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Oh and let's please ignore the job shortage, let's imagine that throwing millions of elderly and disabled people into the job market wouldn't increase job competition, let's pretend that all those elderly and disabled people would just be fine if they had no source of income, or better yet, let's blame them if they don't have family who can support them, and let's pretend they wouldn't go homeless if they couldn't pay their rent. You're such an amazing economist and insightful person.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity What, you mean the job shortage that your holy cult leaders in government created?
There was one time in history when this claim was made: after WWII, when government dogmatists like you insisted that 10 million troops coming back home would result in massive unemployment. It didn't--just the opposite, in fact, as predicted by all of the economists who actually understood Say's Law.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Oh yes let's ignore everything else that lead to this job shortage and blame it all on big bad government. Yes they're my holy cult leaders alright, I sure love me some government, after all I support a constitutionally limited government and have actual arguments for why canceling social security would be a bad idea which you can't even address apparently, sure loves me some government. Oh yessir, I'm a government dogmatist, I must be why else would I support Social Security Insurance?
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity straw man fallacy
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity
What shanedk and Virgil0211 sayd!
rebelq1 1 year ago
@rebelq1 Yes because they said so.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity
No, seriously! Private charities would be far more efficient!
rebelq1 1 year ago
@rebelq1 Oh yes, because we see that all time don't we? Yup, let grandma live in a homeless shelter and eat watered down soup, that's much more efficient! Sucks for grandma, but it's more efficient.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
^ Aside from the fact that grandma isn't out spending, which is bad for demand side economics, which fuels supply side economics, which is the core of wealth creation.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity
LOL, you're hilarious!
I meant if the state would stop stealing more than half of the total income!
rebelq1 1 year ago
@rebelq1 More than half? Good godless man how much do you earn.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity The amount government takes in in revenues is over half of the National Income. That's a FACT. No amount of bleating on your part will change that--nor will bringing up irrelevancies about how much he earns.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Ohhhh around half of the NATIONAL income, not over half of YOUR income. I see. Fact is, we spend on a lot of things, obsolete military bases in europe that serve no strategic purpose, the mating habits of racoons, highways to nowhere and all kinds of other pet projects. If we trim the fat taxes can be reduced dramatically, but Social Security Insurance isn't fat, there are millions of elderly disabled and infirmed people who's lives depend on that.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity The three things that make up the bulk of the budget are military spending, Social Security, and Medicare. Together, they're TWO-THIRDS of the budget.
shanedk 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "Oh yes let's ignore everything else that lead to this job shortage"
No, YOU'RE doing that. Capitalists are evil, and they created this job shortage because of their extreme hate (even though any one of them would LOVE to be able to employ every single one of these people to create more products and services and make even more money).
No, it had NOTHING to do with the government's credit bubble, or inflationary monetary policy, or runaway deficit spending...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk No, you capitalist cultist are just stupid, capitalism isn't evil it's just an economic model, it's you people who have bastardized capitalism and turned it into a religion, I recognize that it has it's strengths and weaknesses and think about how best to exploit the strengths and compensate for the weaknesses. I don't exult any economic system like you do. But I must be a complete socialist if I speak out in favor of social programs right? Government is to blame for everything!
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@shanedk Let's also ignore all of the other factors that have contributed to our economic situation, such as globalization which has put american workers in direct competition with desperate dalits who will work for twelve hours for twelve cents an hour, or such as mainstream automation which has made the workforce increasingly redundant, or predatory lending practices by banks purposely farming self compounding credit debt, or the consolidation of a few large businesses reducing worker demand.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
^ Erm, reducing demand for workers
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Go learn some basic economics and stop regurgitating such unbelievably stupid propaganda.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The only one regurgitating unbelievably stupid propaganda is you. I'm just mocking your stupidity.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity tu quoque fallacy, in addition to just being dishonest.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211 I suppose mockery is often dishonesty, after all mockery often involves intentional distortions and often loads of sarcasm.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity by having electronics made by people who "work for twelve hours for 12 cents an hour" it makes the products made by those people a lot cheaper and affordable, therefore more people buy them, hence creating jobs.
By your logic, think about all the unemployment caused by machines!!
donttreadonmyass 1 year ago
@donttreadonmyass Oh yes cheaper for the people running the sweatshops, but there's still substantial mark up, and even if the goods are more affordable to the general, the toll in human suffering is high, unemployment in America rises because american workers can't compete with desperate sweat shop labor (give it a few years). Sure it creates jobs, but often not in America. And no by my logic unemployment is cause by a variety of factors and only an idiot would oversimplify it like that.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
^ caused, typos are evil
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity When has it EVER been shown that an influx of cheaper labor resulted in higher unemployment? This is what they said about Irish and Chinese immigrants, but it DIDN'T HAPPEN--there were MORE jobs, and BETTER jobs available as a result.
And YOU'RE the one oversimplifying the concept of unemployment! "DEY TOOK AWR JAWBZ!!!!" Go see my video on the subject.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Oh gee I don't know WHEN THE INFLUX OF CHEAP LABOR IS OVER SEAS AND IN DIRECT COMPETITION WITH DOMESTIC WORK FORCES? We're not talking about immigrants coming to america and working dirt cheap, those are American jobs, we're talking about the wealth creation leaving America because desperate dalits will work for twelve hours a day seven days a week for twelve cents an hour just so their kids can have a loaf of bread to go with their rat every week.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "Oh gee I don't know WHEN THE INFLUX OF CHEAP LABOR IS OVER SEAS AND IN DIRECT COMPETITION WITH DOMESTIC WORK FORCES"
That's not how competition works, idiot. Say's Law. Look it up.
This is your magical thinking: you acknowledge that you're wrong with regards to immigrants, but still insist that you're right with foreign workers. Yet, the ONLY difference between the two is which side of an arbitrarily-drawn border line they're on.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Shane, you don't understand what competition is. When goods are produced in india and sold in america by american companies, those goods compete with american manufactured goods (thus american producers are in competition with indian producers). When in India starving dalits will work for twelve hours a day at twelve cents an hour seven days a week, and the American worker expects to have some dignity, companies with the infrastructure will often outsource labor. It's a know issue.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Which means the goods are produced at lower costs, which drives the prices of said goods down, meaning people don't have to spend as much money on them, meaning that they can spend money on other goods, meaning that companies will increase production of those goods, meaning that more jobs will be made relative to those goods.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Once again, you're acting like it's a zero-sum game. It's NOT.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk God damn you must be stupid, because you're the one acting like it's a zero sum game.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Do you need the term 'zero-sum game' explained to you?
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@shanedk In regards to immigrants, how am I wrong with regards to them? Oh do you mean when I mentioned that the American population keeps growing due to immigration, in a climate were jobs are becoming more scarce, creating more competition for jobs among americans? No, you imagined I was complaining about the intentional and often illegal exploitation of illegal immigrants, and seemed to misunderstand or intentionally ignore the actual problem I was speaking of.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Straw man, yet again. It doesn't matter whether or not the 'immigrants are exploited', as you so eloquently put it. What matters is their effect on the labor market. There are three examples (the Irish, the Chinese, and soldiers coming home after WWII) which directly contradict your assertions. Instead of acknowledging this, you have attempted to handwave the problem away and insist that people are just deliberately misunderstanding your point.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211 "Straw man, yet again. It doesn't matter whether or not the 'immigrants are exploited', as you so eloquently put it."
It also doesn't matter if they're legal or illegal.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk They're also completely irrelevant to my point and since I pointed that out and you keep focusing on immigrants rather than foreign workers, an obvious straw man.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity No, we've been pointing out a problem with the basis of your argument. Discarding a flawed element of your argument isn't straw-manning. The comment you just made, where you characterized our attempts to correct you as a straw man is, in fact, the real straw man. Ironic, isn't it?
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "They're also completely irrelevant to my point"
Then why did you bring it up?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk The immigration issue was only brought up to express that our population is increasing, which is increasing competition for jobs. Increased competition for jobs means more people will not be accepted for work. The rest of the nonsense you bring up has nothing to do with my point, and seems to be an obfuscation of the broader issue, which only includes population growth as a single contributing factor.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Wrong. If there were more laborers than jobs, the price would drop (ie wages), which would make more jobs and cheaper labor. This would result in greater production, which in the end would result in greater wages and productivity (and if I have to explain this to you again, I'm going to strangle my pillow).
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "The immigration issue was only brought up to express that our population is increasing, which is increasing competition for jobs."
Yes, brought up BY YOU, to support YOUR claims. Then I asked why that wasn't the case with the Irish and Chinese immigrants. Then you started bleating on about how I was talking about illegal immigrants when I wasn't. YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk But YOU brought up the irrelevant strawman of "MEXICAN WORKERS DONE TOOK MY JORB" When my actual point was "Increased population means increased competition for jobs, which contributes to unemployment"
You're an idiot.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity That assumes that wages don't adjust to compensate. It's comments like these which demonstrate your complete inability to comprehend supply & demand.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211 That assumes that demand is reliant entirely on the cost of the good and the amount of money the purchaser has.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Once again, you demonstrate ignorance of how the demand curve works. The demand curve accounts for consumer preferences and the amount of money the purchaser has. It forecasts how the consumer will decide to spend their money when a product is priced a certain way. At $5, they may wish to buy three items. At $3, they may wish to buy six. At $1, 8. If consumer preferences/disposable income changes, then the curve shifts to account for this. Surely, you should know that.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "But YOU brought up the irrelevant strawman of "MEXICAN WORKERS DONE TOOK MY JORB""
No, LIAR, THAT WAS WHAT YOU SAID! YOU brought up immigration! YOU said that immigrants take jobs away!
You are a thoroughly vile person.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
So how exactly did this end up being a conservation on supply and demand on a video about Social Security?
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd The whole conversation spiraled out because he constantly responded to strawmen of my arguments or went on irrelevant tangents ignoring the true substance of what I said (For example, when I pointed out that it's difficult for first world labor forces to compete with desperate third world workers, he ignored my point and started talking about how said third worlders now have an extremely modest source of income).
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity It's not a straw-man to point out the fact that your negative effects are temporary, whereas the positive effects are permanent.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211
Did you get my PM?
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd Sorry. Trying to keep up with the comments.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@shanedk No it isn't what I said, at this point you are lying, or perhaps imagining positions I do not hold. You responded to a position I did not state, you completely twisted and misrepresented what I did state. Perhaps you lack the intellect to see the difference between your straw man and an honest assessment that an increasing american population (to which immigration is a factor) coupled with outsourcing and globalization is leading to increased competition for jobs during a job shortage
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity Which is wrong, because you're not taking supply & demand into account. What you're referring to would shift the supply curve to the right, increasing quantity and decreasing price. The only way your scenario would lead to unemployment would be in the existence of a legal price barrier, such as minimum wage, which wouldn't exist on a free market.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity "The immigration issue was only brought up to express that our population is increasing, which is increasing competition for jobs"
that has nothing to do with immigrants, this could have to do with an increasing population in general. By your logic there should be less jobs in 2007 than 1980 since the population increased from 226 million to 300 million.
donttreadonmyass 1 year ago 2
@GodlessInfinity I said NOTHING about legal or illegal immigrants. Once again, you're just lying to avoid the fact that you've been shown to be wrong.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk In other words you committed one big straw man fallacy, or you've made an honest mistake.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@shanedk
He also seems unaware of the reason of outsourcing is because of his precious state.
Regulations made it too expensive to hire American workers, so the companies either go out of business, or set up shop overseas.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd You seem unaware that I am not a state worshiping socialist, and appear to be projecting a mirror inversion of your blind faith in ideological economic purism onto me. Also outsourcing occures largely because desperate third world labor is cheaper than dignified first world labor, and in a lot of desperate third world countries you can dump toxic waste wherever you want and pay no heed to the environment, in America we don't like getting sick and dying from pollution or being coerced.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
^ Unfortunately some level of coercion will always exist in human society, regardless of economic system, because humans will not always agree on what is acceptable or what is necessary.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity 'Also outsourcing occures largely because desperate third world labor is cheaper than dignified first world labor, and in a lot of desperate third world countries you can dump toxic waste wherever you want and pay no heed to the environment, in America we don't like getting sick and dying from pollution or being coerced.'
Straw man, appeal to ridicule, and not to mention just plain wrong.
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@GodlessInfinity
And adding to Virgil0211's comment,
PS: Look up Psychological Projection.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@vspqbd I already understand psychological projection and was applying it correctly, I'm aware that there are more refined definitions that do not apply, but I was using the broader definition Sigmund Freud coined in observing patients projecting their own traits and characteristics onto others, often with a cognitive dissonance in which they either failed to recognize that they themselves held the traits they were projecting (such as worshiping purest economic ideology) or denying their traits.
GodlessInfinity 1 year ago
@vspqbd True, but to a large part irrelevant. If outsourcing occurs because of market forces, it means that labor resources at home are freed up to be used on other things.
On the other hand, the state passing regulations and making it more expensive to do business is destructive, regardless of whether the jobs go overseas or they're just lost.
shanedk 1 year ago