not HRE wrote:
Why don't you register your well-known handle?
Why would I want to?
not HRE wrote:
Why don't you register your well-known handle?
Why would I want to?
HRE wrote:
not HRE wrote:Why don't you register your well-known handle?
Why would I want to?
Guess.
HRE (registered) wrote:
HRE wrote:Why would I want to?
Guess.
Don't care enough to bother guessing.
$15 an hour is too much, but setting the minimum wage at least $10 an hour will make America great again.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/donald-trump-minimum-wage/
Bruh wrote:
Ricky Martin wrote:Bruh, your name is the first thing that comes to mind each time you post. Savings = investment is not a novel concept. Maybe that's covered in Sophomore year.
My point is that investment is a much less efficient way of driving the economy. I never said investment does nothing, but not every dime of those investments will get spent. Whereas if a starving poor person were given money, they would spend every last cent of it. It doesn't matter where the money is pumped into the economy, as long as enough money is being spent, we will thrive. If investment was the most efficient way of stimulating the economy, then I would be all for it, but it simply isn't.
Wow, very scary thinking. I hope you never set government policy.
Investment is the only true way to grow the economy and increase the standard of living. thought experiment: A "rich" guy has too much money. You decide to tax him $5m to redistribute it to those you feel need it more than he does. However, he wanted to invest the $5m in a young biotech startup that desperately needs capital to develop a new tech that couldn reduce the cost of global food production. which is better?
Savings and investment are what increase the standard of living and make our lives longer and healthier, not consumer consumption.
Next time you are asked to invest in a project, I am sure you will say its better for society if you go and spend that money on $10k worth of instant mac and cheese.
Good robot employee wrote:
How will small businesses thrive if they can't afford any help? Seems like a boon for big business.
No business will thrive or survive if there are no customers.
Your workers are someone's customers. If they aren't paid enough to have any left over at the end of the week, the businesses make no sales.
Off shore manufacturing doesn't help local business. The money needs to be here and circulating.
Has anyone ever tried to calculate an ideal minimum wage that results in maximum economic benefit? Surely it must be possible to create a model which takes into an account changes in consumer spending, investment, prices, profits, etc. as a function of minimum wage, which would allow for implementation of a roughly ideal minimum wage. Or is this not realistically possible?
HRE wrote:
A wage of any size is not a handout. I'm not discussing handouts at all. Where did you get the idea I was?
Look, you're always going to have incompetent people and if you have massive numbers of them making only subsistence wages they're going to be a drag on the economy. Businesses can take care of themselves. Many would be more profitable if more people could afford what they're selling and they did fine decades ago when the minimum wage was higher in real terms.
The whole wage wouldn't be a handout, but that amount of it over the natural market value would be. I get where you're coming from, but it's a very pessimistic view to just throw in the towel and say that vast sums of people will never be able to succeed on their own. Most people get that way because they actually start to believe it and act accordingly.
Good post, aquant. Now I'm done with this thread because arguing on the Internet is pointless.
Congratulations wrote:
Good post, aquant. Now I'm done with this thread because arguing on the Internet is pointless.
I second this. aquant won the thread.
aquant wrote:
Bruh wrote:My point is that investment is a much less efficient way of driving the economy. I never said investment does nothing, but not every dime of those investments will get spent. Whereas if a starving poor person were given money, they would spend every last cent of it. It doesn't matter where the money is pumped into the economy, as long as enough money is being spent, we will thrive. If investment was the most efficient way of stimulating the economy, then I would be all for it, but it simply isn't.
Wow, very scary thinking. I hope you never set government policy.
Investment is the only true way to grow the economy and increase the standard of living. thought experiment: A "rich" guy has too much money. You decide to tax him $5m to redistribute it to those you feel need it more than he does. However, he wanted to invest the $5m in a young biotech startup that desperately needs capital to develop a new tech that couldn reduce the cost of global food production. which is better?
Savings and investment are what increase the standard of living and make our lives longer and healthier, not consumer consumption.
Next time you are asked to invest in a project, I am sure you will say its better for society if you go and spend that money on $10k worth of instant mac and cheese.
Your understanding of the kind of numbers I am suggesting are very skewed, not ALL of their money would be taxed. Do you understand what a progressive tax system is? I guess you aren't understanding when I said that the money I would be taxing is just sitting there because the person is so rich, they can't physically DO ANYTHING with it, this includes investing. The money I am talking about doesn't help the economy at all.
I am suggesting that we have a tax system where there is a limit to the amount they can put in the bank. Then, anything else the money is used for such as any consumption, investing, charity etc. is all tax deductible and taxed at a significantly lower rate. The tax tables only go up to about the mid 400,000's a year, they need to be more progressive and go into the 10's of millions, but also start slightly later.
I understand my wording in the above response was crappy and wrong, I guess I wasn't thinking completely straight and was thinking of investment and spending as one. I think there isn't enough money in consumer spending, currently.
Breh, do you know what a bank does with the money people put in savings accounts, and how much money rich people put in vs. other investments? You claim to have taken Economics 101 but I'm not sure you know.
Back to basics... wrote:
Breh, do you know what a bank does with the money people put in savings accounts, and how much money rich people put in vs. other investments? You claim to have taken Economics 101 but I'm not sure you know.
Yes, banks give loans to people to buy things such as houses. Most houses aren't bought new, so they don't benefit the builders of the house. Trade between people doesnt count. Same with used cars.
They also loan to businesses, yet wouldn't it be more effective to have people spend money on that business, and have it make profit, instead of the business creating debt for themselves to expand?
Bruh wrote:
Back to basics... wrote:Breh, do you know what a bank does with the money people put in savings accounts, and how much money rich people put in vs. other investments? You claim to have taken Economics 101 but I'm not sure you know.
Yes, banks give loans to people to buy things such as houses. Most houses aren't bought new, so they don't benefit the builders of the house. Trade between people doesnt count. Same with used cars.
It benefits the buyers and sellers of the homes buy lending at low rates. If people didn't save enough lending would tighten and there wouldn't be enough activity. It also indirectly helps home builders because people who want a new home are more able to sell their current one at a high price.
Bruh wrote:
They also loan to businesses, yet wouldn't it be more effective to have people spend money on that business, and have it make profit, instead of the business creating debt for themselves to expand?
Those businesses are not yet producing anything to sell, that's why they need capital. Though a bank would be more likely to loan to expand an existing business like a restaurant opening a new location.
HardLoper wrote:
Bruh wrote:Yes, banks give loans to people to buy things such as houses. Most houses aren't bought new, so they don't benefit the builders of the house. Trade between people doesnt count. Same with used cars.
It benefits the buyers and sellers of the homes buy lending at low rates. If people didn't save enough lending would tighten and there wouldn't be enough activity. It also indirectly helps home builders because people who want a new home are more able to sell their current one at a high price.
Bruh wrote:
They also loan to businesses, yet wouldn't it be more effective to have people spend money on that business, and have it make profit, instead of the business creating debt for themselves to expand?
Those businesses are not yet producing anything to sell, that's why they need capital. Though a bank would be more likely to loan to expand an existing business like a restaurant opening a new location.
The effect on home builders is minimal at best.
The number of people buying new homes is very low.
That's why there would be a limit to banking, there would still be money to help start ups, but those already in business would benefit more from increased consumer spending.
Do you have any calculations to back up your assertion that tightening of lending standards has minimal impact on new home building? Minimal compared to what?
What the eff are the limits on banking you want? Where do you think consumers get the money to spend? They either produce something of equal value (requiring others to invest and save) or borrow (requiring others to save). In order to increase the real GDP, you must you have to either increase the size and hours of the work force (there are natural limits to how much of this you can do) or else increase the efficiency of production (requiring entrepreneurial activity and innovation, which requires savings and investment).
HardLoper wrote:
Do you have any calculations to back up your assertion that tightening of lending standards has minimal impact on new home building? Minimal compared to what?
What the eff are the limits on banking you want? Where do you think consumers get the money to spend? They either produce something of equal value (requiring others to invest and save) or borrow (requiring others to save). In order to increase the real GDP, you must you have to either increase the size and hours of the work force (there are natural limits to how much of this you can do) or else increase the efficiency of production (requiring entrepreneurial activity and innovation, which requires savings and investment).
Limits on banking= an extremely high max amount that a person can have in a savings account.
When people produce something of value (i.e. Product or service) people have to SPEND to get it. They can invest in the company as well, but there should be more spending than investing, that will help the business more in the long run.
Who borrows money to buy anything other than a house or car. People don't take out loans to do their grocery shopping.
Real GDP will be increased because efficiency will go up, more people having more disposable income that they will actually spend, therefore, they will spend more money than they were before (adjusted for inflation), this will make companies more EFFICIENT and PROFITABLE.
Entrepreneurship requires savings and investment, but it also requires spending. It's all fine and dandy if you have a great idea and the money to do it, but if no one actually buys your stuff, you aren't making a dime. This is like saying making a campfire requires wood and a spark, that is 100% correct, but it also requires oxygen.
I can't justify it. Let's get a movement going to eliminate the minimum wage and Federal Reserve Bank.
Bruh wrote:
Limits on banking= an extremely high max amount that a person can have in a savings account.
Wouldn't do anything because no one puts massive amounts of money into savings. Rich people invest in other things
Bruh wrote:
Who borrows money to buy anything other than a house or car. People don't take out loans to do their grocery shopping.
Everyone. If lending tightens, interest rates go up, monthly mortgage payments go up, and people have less money to spend elsewhere.
Bruh wrote:
Entrepreneurship requires savings and investment, but it also requires spending.
Not so
Bruh wrote:
It's all fine and dandy if you have a great idea and the money to do it, but if no one actually buys your stuff, you aren't making a dime.
If no one buys it then it's not such a great idea is it?
If you're going to have a minimum wage, and whether we should or not isn't the discussion here, you need to adjust it for inflation. That's not been done regularly and it needs a big bump now to return to its original purchasing power.