Higher Wages, Higher Prices

[WinePusher]

[youtube][/youtube]

This video succinctly demonstrates how many people (liberals in particular) are willing to talk the talk, but unwilling to walk the walk when it comes to issues like higher wages and poverty.

Questions:

1) Would you be willing to pay 15% more when you go shopping in order for the workers to received a 15% pay increase?

2) Would you be willing to pay 15% more in taxes if it meant that all this money would go to help the poor?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

Whether the state provides healthcare or not is irrelevant. Lets assume there is no state health-care what happens when an employer does not provide health benefits to their employees while simultaneously paying them a non-livable salary(Does not cover shelter, food, or clothes)

Employee A. is in this situation they get into a car accident an ambulance comes to pick them up a doctor gives them an X-ray etc. the bill is $10,000 dollars when its all said and done. Employee A. cannot pay this and defaults on the debt. The Health service that provided this care is out the cost of the bill it raises its prices to compensate for a lack of coverage you the consumer who can afford health coverage inevitably paying for the cost of Employee A.'s health bills. the Royal state meaning you and me the citizens the tax payers are out the cost of the health coverage.

This is just a simple example but you can infer what I am trying to say here. That while health coverage doesn't necessarily have to be required at a bare minimum a wage sufficient for the employee to cover their basic costs should be provided, because if it is not the burden of that individuals cost of living is shifted back on to us.

Simply put its a decision, Do you want the tax payers to cover the costs of living for its fellow citizens who are in poverty or should their employers be responsible. I personally feel it is not the states responsibility to provide welfare and healthcare to its citizens. As mentioned before C.E.O salaries have ballooned and a good chunk of profits companies make do not go to its employees or lowering costs for goods. I would suggest that many companies like Walmart can remain just as efficient with higher compensation to its employees if it trimmed in other areas like executive pay.

You are presuming that people should not be accountable for their own lives. Your scenario is not a given. It is created by the fact that "the Royal state" has passed legislation making it illegal for a health care provider to deny services to those who can not pay. I agree with you. It is not the states responsibility to provide welfare and healthcare to its citizens. However, since that is the case, on what basis does the state have the right to compel private industry to do so?

Any disparity in wage within a particular company is a separate issue. If you believe that such a disparity is immoral that is a matter of the amount of compensation, not the nature of that compensation. Why does the state have the right to dictate the exchange rate on goods and services? Also, unless the nature of those goods and services inherently threatens the pubic good, why should the state have a right to dictate the nature of those goods and services? For example, why should it be illegal to compensate someone only in legal tender?

[WinePusher]

I don't know how Michael Moore spends his money, where he shops and what he donates. Do you?

I don't blame you for not knowing anything about Michael Moore's finances. He is afterall an American filmaker while you are a Canadian. But, here's an article that should hopefully enlighten you about this issue: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ael-moore/

Let's wait for a response from WinePusher with his evidence before we assume that he is slanderous liar.

If you're going to insult other people by calling them slanderous liars (which is against the rules) can you PLEASE have the decency to not make obvious grammar mistakes while doing it?

[johnmarc]

To increase the hourly wage of 2.2 million employees by $2 per hour, assuming 2000 hours yearly, would cost 8.8 billion. Given the number of part-time employees, I would think 8.5 billion or perhaps even 8 billion would be sufficient to accomplish the $2 raise. A $2 raise for a person making $10 an hour is a 20% increase. It's a 25% increase for someone making $8 an hour.

What is not being said here is where the 8.8 billion dollars goes. It goes back into the economy---it just doesn't dissipate. If low wage workers have 8.8 billion more dollars to spend, those dollars go back into Walmart and fast food. (or whatever) Very few of them are building yachts in Taiwan, they are aiding and abetting the economy here at home.

P.S. Winepusher---fast food is not for the poor. They are eating beans and rice at home.

[Divine Insight]

Actually, you're proving my point with everything you wrote here. Walmart, and fast food restaurants in general, are meant to provide goods and services to poor people. Poor people rely on walmart and fast food restaurants in order to get the essential things they need. Artificially increasing the wages of walmart and fast food workers would undoubtedly cause them to increase prices (or lay off workers) in order to offset these new expenses. The point of the video is that a government imposed minimum wage might help workers, but it will harm consumers because consumers will be forced to pay higher prices for what they buy. As you can see in the video, many people enjoy the low prices provided by walmart and would rather not pay more money for what they buy, even if its going to help walmart employees.

But that wasn't the point of the video you had posted in the OP.

The video was asking the consumers to pay more for the products they buy just so the Walmart workers could get a raise. That's nowhere near the same as raising the minimum wage for everyone.

If the minimum wage is raised for everyone that would include the Walmart customers too. After all, they must have jobs and work too.

So the video you posted does not correctly represent an increase in minimum wage in general.

Now, mind you, I'm necessarily arguing that an increase in the minimum wage in general is necessarily a good idea or required in our current economy. I'm just pointing out that the video you posted does not properly represent an increase in minimum wage across the board for everyone.

Don't forget, an increase in minimum wage 'Trickles up" Because people who were making the that amount now expect a raise and so on. The idea is that this effect slowly deteriorates as it "Trickles up". People that are making a lot of money aren't going to expect a proportional increase. That would be unrealistic.

Also, at the very bottom line, I'm not arguing for the status quo anyway. As far as I'm concerned our current economy-driven society based on capitalism isn't the way to go anyway. But since we already have this highly inefficiency economy in place, then sure, go ahead and raise the minimum wages. We may as well.

It's the current system of capitalism that is causing such a huge economic divide between the classes in the first place.

So, yeah, raise the minimum wage. Why not? We have an economy that's heading for disaster in any case. So what's the difference?

This division between the rich and the poor can't increase forever or you'd end up with the masses being totally destitute and the rich people would soon discover that without the support of the masses they have nothing to get rich off, and the whole thing falls apart, not just the poor, but the rich too.

Capitalism was a mistake from the get-go. Ask anyone who's into business or finance. The key to economic success is GROWTH. But that can't last forever, the planet is a finite world.

Any system of economy that requires GROWTH to be profitable is ultimately doomed.

The only system that can truly become stable is a system that can survive in a stable state.

So go ahead and raise the minimum wage. That's not the problem anyway.

Capitalism is the problem. And that's not about to be changed so we're basically heading down economic death row.

It's just a matter of time. The only thing that can save a capitalistic economy is huge natural disasters or wars that kill off a lot of people so we can move backwards to where GROWTH is required again. Growth is required for our current economic system to work. Be we are already not growing fast enough to feed the monster.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 24 by Divine Insight]

I wouldn't exactly blame capitalism. Capitalism is merely the economic system that chooses freedom over equality. This is juxtaposed to socialism that chooses equality over freedom. (obviously an extreme simplification, but these are basically their core tenets) Those are the two extremes of the economic spectrum, barring anarchy. the US economy is more moderate than pure laissez-faire capitalism though, but still heavily capitalistic. Some would say shifting further to the left and "socialism" (although I hasten to use that word because of the very unfairly negative connotations. thanks fox news) counteracts this to some degree. It is a temporary fix though. The problem is occurring because in a world of steadily increasing population (nearly exponential), we are all fighting over the same scarce goods. The pie isn't getting any bigger but more and more people want a piece. Everybody's slices are getting smaller.

[johnmarc]

I don't know how Michael Moore spends his money, where he shops and what he donates. Do you?

I don't blame you for not knowing anything about Michael Moore's finances. He is afterall an American filmaker while you are a Canadian. But, here's an article that should hopefully enlighten you about this issue: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ael-moore/

Let's wait for a response from WinePusher with his evidence before we assume that he is slanderous liar.

If you're going to insult other people by calling them slanderous liars (which is against the rules) can you PLEASE have the decency to not make obvious grammar mistakes while doing it?

It seems to me (too simplistically of course) that there are three major viewpoints. One is far left, one is far right and the one that holds the most objectivity is closer to the middle (in our present poisoned atmosphere, more left of center, really)

Winepusher is in the far right, out in gibberish land and he holds that anything left of that position is leftist gibberish. (including objectivity) One can put the most carefully evaluated facts in front of him and if he doesn't see flags waving in the midst of it, it is discarded as leftist propaganda. He once 'proved' that Democrats were singly responsible for the economic downturn with three paragraphs from Carl Rove.

Michael Moore may be everything that he claims to be, but if the right wing spin machine sees it differently (and it is in their interest to do that) so will winepusher.

It is an issue of authority. If winepusher sees false as true then false becomes his authority and there really isn't any way to have a fruitful conversation. Truth is seen as 'agreement' and anything outside of agreement is rendered false regardless of the facts and figures behind them.

[WinePusher]

Actually, you're proving my point with everything you wrote here. Walmart, and fast food restaurants in general, are meant to provide goods and services to poor people. Poor people rely on walmart and fast food restaurants in order to get the essential things they need. Artificially increasing the wages of walmart and fast food workers would undoubtedly cause them to increase prices (or lay off workers) in order to offset these new expenses. The point of the video is that a government imposed minimum wage might help workers, but it will harm consumers because consumers will be forced to pay higher prices for what they buy. As you can see in the video, many people enjoy the low prices provided by walmart and would rather not pay more money for what they buy, even if its going to help walmart employees.

But that wasn't the point of the video you had posted in the OP.

The video was asking the consumers to pay more for the products they buy just so the Walmart workers could get a raise. That's nowhere near the same as raising the minimum wage for everyone.

No. The point being made in the video is that raising the minimum wage will cause consumers to pay more for the products they buy.

If the minimum wage is raised for everyone that would include the Walmart customers too. After all, they must have jobs and work too.

Ok, I think I see what you're saying. You're essentially making an argument using the circular flow model. That the minimum wage will put more money into the pockets of workers and in turn these workers will have more disposable income to spend. Honestly, I don't find it very convincing. If this is the case then why not raise the minimum wage to an astronomically high amount, like $100 per hour. According to your logic, businesses will pay out $100 to all their workers regardless of their productivity but that's ok, because the workers will spend the $100 and give it back to the businesses and the circular flow will continue.

Now, mind you, I'm necessarily arguing that an increase in the minimum wage in general is necessarily a good idea or required in our current economy. I'm just pointing out that the video you posted does not properly represent an increase in minimum wage across the board for everyone.

Ok, I understand what you're saying but I still disagree. There are two consequences of raising the minimum wage. The video I posted only focuses on one of these consequences, which is higher prices. The other consequence is higher unemployment for unskilled workers. Even if the minimum wage is increased across the board we will likely see unemployment rates rise for low skilled, youth workers and this will make success and advancement in the labor market even more difficult for them. Climbing up the job ladder is even more difficult when you take away the first step, and that is what the minimum wage does.

Capitalism was a mistake from the get-go. Ask anyone who's into business or finance. The key to economic success is GROWTH. But that can't last forever, the planet is a finite world.

Many of the resources the planet provides are renewable, and the only way we will ever develop the adequate technologies to tap into these renewable resources on a massive scale is if we continue with Capitalism. Even Karl Marx praised Capitalism for its technological ingenuity and advancement.

[dianaiad]

I don't know how Michael Moore spends his money, where he shops and what he donates. Do you?

I don't blame you for not knowing anything about Michael Moore's finances. He is afterall an American filmaker while you are a Canadian. But, here's an article that should hopefully enlighten you about this issue: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ael-moore/

Let's wait for a response from WinePusher with his evidence before we assume that he is slanderous liar.

If you're going to insult other people by calling them slanderous liars (which is against the rules) can you PLEASE have the decency to not make obvious grammar mistakes while doing it?

It seems to me (too simplistically of course) that there are three major viewpoints. One is far left, one is far right and the one that holds the most objectivity is closer to the middle (in our present poisoned atmosphere, more left of center, really)

Winepusher is in the far right, out in gibberish land and he holds that anything left of that position is leftist gibberish. (including objectivity) One can put the most carefully evaluated facts in front of him and if he doesn't see flags waving in the midst of it, it is discarded as leftist propaganda. He once 'proved' that Democrats were singly responsible for the economic downturn with three paragraphs from Carl Rove.

Michael Moore may be everything that he claims to be, but if the right wing spin machine sees it differently (and it is in their interest to do that) so will winepusher.

It is an issue of authority. If winepusher sees false as true then false becomes his authority and there really isn't any way to have a fruitful conversation. Truth is seen as 'agreement' and anything outside of agreement is rendered false regardless of the facts and figures behind them.

Moderator Comment

Please refrain from characterizing a poster directly and negatively. Address the topic, not the author.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Darias]

1)

Also, at the very bottom line, I'm not arguing for the status quo anyway. As far as I'm concerned our current economy-driven society based on capitalism isn't the way to go anyway. But since we already have this highly inefficiency economy in place, then sure, go ahead and raise the minimum wages. We may as well.

If the ship is sinking, the best thing to do is help people survive it; you can't do that by making it worse for the people scrambling to get off. Sinking the boat faster doesn't make much sense.



2)

It's the current system of capitalism that is causing such a huge economic divide between the classes in the first place.

The entire world (men, women and children) was impoverished and laboring with no guarantee for their efforts prior to capitalism. Capitalism largely alleviated that. Child labor that occurred during the industrial revolution was not a creation of capitalism, but a norm... a norm fueled by the state which readily supplied orphans to do the most dangerous jobs.

The creation of wealth doesn't mean everyone will become equally rich, but the enormous disparity is not the fault of any free market, but precisely the doing of the state. Stalin was doing quite well for himself at the expense of the peasantry, who were largely no different than serfs of ancient times. Most of them starved to death while he lived luxuriously.

Similarly the state and the laws that create corporations, subsidies, limited liability, minimum wage laws etc., artificially enrich big business at the expense of the little guy. Small businesses can't afford to pay their workers $15 an hour, leaving Walmart the only survivor, and thus propagating an artificial, state-created monopoly, which results in less quality at a higher expense. The rich benefit more and the poor and middle classes are more worse off.

Of course people call for the end of corporate personhood, but they forget this would make it impossible for the state to tax corporations legally.



3)

So, yeah, raise the minimum wage. Why not? We have an economy that's heading for disaster in any case. So what's the difference?

I don't see how increasing unemployment and benefiting corporate monopolies helps the financial struggle of the poor in the final decades of the US economy. I can't imagine any sort of recovery or improvement within the next 30 years. And this is simply because state decree cannot change facts. Math will win out in the end.



4)

This division between the rich and the poor can't increase forever or you'd end up with the masses being totally destitute and the rich people would soon discover that without the support of the masses they have nothing to get rich off, and the whole thing falls apart, not just the poor, but the rich too.

Well the free market doesn't work like that. The rich don't get infinitely richer and the poor don't get more poor because of voluntary transactions and agreements. This tends to happen when the government plays favorites in the economy, and profits on the poor (through federal student loans, etc.).



5)

Capitalism was a mistake from the get-go. Ask anyone who's into business or finance. The key to economic success is GROWTH. But that can't last forever, the planet is a finite world.

Any system of economy that requires GROWTH to be profitable is ultimately doomed.

An economy that exists in a state of stagnation cannot be said to be an economy, nor can it be said to be efficient since it's not producing enough excess to grow. If you're not growing, you're dead or dying.

That doesn't mean capitalism destroys resources and never produces renewable industries. If all resources are exhausted and there weren't any principles of property or incentives to renew resources for profit, then there wouldn't be an economy for very long, but that's not how the free market works... or any economy that isn't strictly commanded for that matter either.



6)

The only system that can truly become stable is a system that can survive in a stable state.

So go ahead and raise the minimum wage. That's not the problem anyway.

Capitalism is the problem. And that's not about to be changed so we're basically heading down economic death row.

What do you mean by stable state? status or government? What do you mean by raising the minimum wage isn't a problem, that it doesn't have any negative consequences? What do you mean by capitalism is the problem. Why? Explain to me what you're talking about because it's difficult for me to make heads or tails of it.



7)

It's just a matter of time. The only thing that can save a capitalistic economy is huge natural disasters or wars that kill off a lot of people so we can move backwards to where GROWTH is required again. Growth is required for our current economic system to work. Be we are already not growing fast enough to feed the monster.

How exactly do you define growth? When you say that we don't need growth or progress it's like saying that everything that can be invented has already been invented. In other words, it sounds ridiculous.

And it's funny that you advocate war and destruction as something that can save the economy; it's Keynesian and thus quite fitting. When resources are dedicated to rebuilding, the cost of this is all the progress and additional things that could have been added on top of what was there prior to its destruction. To say that violence is great for the economy is what's better known as the broken window fallacy.

[center][yt][/yt][/center]



8)

[Replying to post 24 by Divine Insight]

I wouldn't exactly blame capitalism. Capitalism is merely the economic system that chooses freedom over equality. This is juxtaposed to socialism that chooses equality over freedom. (obviously an extreme simplification, but these are basically their core tenets)

"Tenets" ....what are you talking about?



9)

Those are the two extremes of the economic spectrum, barring anarchy.

Obviously the presence or absence of a state will have negative or positive effects on an economy, respectively; but it's important to keep in mind that a stateless environment is not an economy. A collapse of government does not produce a free market anymore than the collapse of the local church spreads atheism throughout town. The actual polar opposites are command economies of state-Communism, and the voluntary economies existing sans state in what would be described as market-anarchism.



10)

the US economy is more moderate than pure laissez-faire capitalism though, but still heavily capitalistic.

Laissez-faire economies require a minimal state to monopolize the enforcement of property rights. I don't believe laissez-faire economies have never existed, even with colonial America in mind, as that was one of the smallest governments that comes to mind. Even if it's possible that a Laissez-faire economy did exist in ancient times, they can only exist for a short period, as small states always grow, just like cancers. The colonial constitutional republic is now a global empire where rights are symbolic and can be/are violated at any time.

The economy in the US, despite what the GOP says, is not free -- as free means free from all government interference. Given the number of regulatory agencies (and it's not to say regulation is a bad thing, but regulatory bodies monopolized by the state aren't so great), the number of tariffs and bailouts and subsidies and taxes and whatnot, it's hard to call this economy anything but a socialist one under state-capitalism.

But when you paint the picture of two "extremes" right before labeling what exists now as "moderate," you are committing the ad temperantiam fallacy. You don't really understand what these terms refer to, you just know that "somewhere in-between is good." When someone says communism is bad but the free market is kinda scarey so corporatism must be the best way to go -- there's nothing I can do but face-palm.



11)

Some would say shifting further to the left and "socialism" (although I hasten to use that word because of the very unfairly negative connotations. thanks fox news) counteracts this to some degree. It is a temporary fix though.

It's about time that socialism earned the bad name it should have. Socialist economies have resulted in more deaths then the entire Second World War produced. The Nazi party was a national socialist one, and state-communist Russia was a socialist one as well. I certainly don't understand why the hammer and sickle doesn't earn the same amount of disdain as the swastika since it represents an ideology that has killed far more people than Hitler could have dreamed of offing.

I don't really like Fox News as they get a lot of things wrong, but their failure to glorify socialism isn't one of them. In fact, painting socialism as this wonderful thing that could work out is as offensive to me as saying that "the Third Reich failed a little bit in the human rights department but if tried again correctly, it could do a lot of good." People ignorant of history might say that, just as people ignorant about economics regularly say the same about socialism. It doesn't surprise me because people just don't know what they're talking about; but it's mad just the same.



12)

The problem is occurring because in a world of steadily increasing population (nearly exponential), we are all fighting over the same scarce goods.

Fighting isn't a product of the free market. The wars we see today are fueled by states and the military industrial complex, wide-scale conflicts of course are impossible without the state as the state is the health of warfare.

Voluntary economies don't bring guns to the negotiation table. Colonialism isn't the free market. Mercantilism isn't the free market. Theft and tariffs and all this nonsense isn't a result of the free market. It's fueled by the state and corporatism.

The thing about capitalism is that it produces excess, where for much of human history, the entire family had to work in the hopes enough crops would grow to keep them alive. That's why most of human history is flat-lined. Capitalism isn't about exponential growth either, so I have no idea what you're talking about in that regard. There are countless renewable industries out there and that's all because of technology which is a product of capitalism, and can only result from capitalism. If it weren't for the technology capitalism produces, there wouldn't even be such a thing as birth control or other contraceptives. Then again, it wouldn't matter much because we'd just be a few tribes living in the woods, wholly reliant on that which nature provides to keep our species alive.



13)

The pie isn't getting any bigger but more and more people want a piece. Everybody's slices are getting smaller.

This, in fact, is the definition of socialism. Redistribution is not growth. Stealing from others and shuffling money around, and encouraging spending does not create wealth. Production, investment, and savings create wealth. Socialism is just a fancy word for rationing away a limited amount of resources, as there aren't enough rich people to steal from to provide for the dependent classes; I am not hating on people for liking a free lunch, I mean that's just human nature. But you can't create an economy by taxing the rich until they leave the country and dictating supply and demand; everything will just be inefficient and everyone will be more poor because of it. Greece is just one example that comes to mind.

I mean you can't really blame a lack of patriotism for people wanting to leave the country because of taxes. The former president of France wanted to do just that, and you can't get much more patriotic than president. Saying "if you don't like it, you can get out" in one breath and "you can't leave, you owe it to us!" in another is just ridiculous.

Capitalism has paved the way for everyone on the planet to buy a bottle of coca-cola and a cell phone, where both were once expensive luxury goods. Most poor people today are better off than kings of ancient times who didn't have air conditioning or internet access or medicine. When people say we should return to the days of feudalism, or that East Germany was pretty great, it's hard for me to even respond to that. And if you're talking to me about a hypothetical socialism that magically makes everyone wealthy and takes care of everyone -- well I don't know what you're talking about. Since we're entertaining fantasy, could you possibly explain how that would work and how we could avoid the bloody consequences of socialism in the real world?



14)

It seems to me (too simplistically of course) that there are three major viewpoints. One is far left, one is far right and the one that holds the most objectivity is closer to the middle (in our present poisoned atmosphere, more left of center, really)

‣ Golden mean fallacy

There are the chain smokers and then there are the nerds who don't smoke. Obviously smoking on occasion is the best option of the three because it's objectively in the middle. A little cancer is ideal; too much is bad, but none is no fun.

I tend to notice that moderates are moderate on certain subjects primarily because they're uninformed about an issue. This is basically all the undecided voters during elections, etc. Yet "middle ground" isn't the best choice when it comes to science versus Creationism, or alchemy versus chemistry, so I don't understand how people glorify the center as "correct" on issues of right and wrong.

When economically illiterate people see fit to espouse their opinions about socialism and capitalism, it's like listening to the Westboro Baptist church talk about gays. I'm not trying to be rude or offensive, but really guys, please make an effort to understand what you're talking about before debating a subject; because you have to realize listening to adults talk about something they don't understand is offensive to me. You have access to the internet, so there's not much room for excuse on your part. Look up the definitions of socialism and capitalism. Understand what "free market" means before trying to make an argument for why "a little socialism" is good.

Please defend your position with something other than middle ground fallacies and appealing to mainstream opinions of the masses. "Most people think the system we have is best" is not an argument; it's sophistry.



-

[WinePusher]

It seems to me (too simplistically of course) that there are three major viewpoints. One is far left, one is far right and the one that holds the most objectivity is closer to the middle (in our present poisoned atmosphere, more left of center, really)

‣ Golden mean fallacy

There are the chain smokers and then there are the nerds who don't smoke. Obviously smoking on occasion is the best option of the three because it's objectively in the middle. A little cancer is ideal; too much is bad, but none is no fun.

I tend to notice that moderates are moderate on certain subjects primarily because they're uninformed about an issue. This is basically all the undecided voters during elections, etc. Yet "middle ground" isn't the best choice when it comes to science versus Creationism, or alchemy versus chemistry, so I don't understand how people glorify the center as "correct" on issues of right and wrong.

When economically illiterate people see fit to espouse their opinions about socialism and capitalism, it's like listening to the Westboro Baptist church talk about gays. I'm not trying to be rude or offensive, but really guys, please make an effort to understand what you're talking about before debating a subject; because you have to realize listening to adults talk about something they don't understand is offensive to me. You have access to the internet, so there's not much room for excuse on your part. Look up the definitions of socialism and capitalism. Understand what "free market" means before trying to make an argument for why "a little socialism" is good.

Please defend your position with something other than middle ground fallacies and appealing to mainstream opinions of the masses. "Most people think the system we have is best" is not an argument; it's sophistry.

Wow, can't believe I actually agree with you on this Darias. Yea, it seems like many of the liberals on this forum don't really understand how the economy works. They all have their preconceived opinions about how the economy should be organized, but unforunately for them all their opinions are uninformed by facts and economic theory. It never ceases to amaze me how so many liberals don't even understand how a simple concept like supply and demand works. And then of course, all of their arguments are completely senseless and predictable, they'll either say something like "The rich are evil, corporations are evil, government good, if you no like government you hate poor ppl and you want workers to starve and die in factories."

But, I do take issue with what you said about socialism. I feel like a little socialism is justified in order to take care of those poor people who genuinely can't take care of themselves. Obviously the bloated and wasteful welfare bureaucracy should be abolished, but there should be a basic form of welfare nonetheless (something along the lines of Friedman's negative income tax).