Progressive Young Turks Think Ron Paul is Probably a better option then Obama

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
At least you understand how supply and demand works. Unfortunatley Dan thinks that companies can charge whatever they want for their products and it will not change demand.
Actually that's not what I think. I speak for myself just fine and did not ask you to speak for me. If I need you to speak for me I'll let you know. Until then please do not make that decision on my behalf.

I think that when companies find ways to cut money they do not pass those saving on to the consumers unless they are forced to. The proof is that after 30 years of outsourcing for cheaper labor the wealthy elites have acquired an unprecedented amount of wealth while the rest of us lose out. They are just keeping the extra profits they make off of cheap labor, not passing it on to the consumer.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member

  • They are just keeping the extra profits they make off of cheap labor, not passing it on to the consumer.​


When did companies become "REQUIRED" to pass on anything to the consumer other than their products?

You are not owed anything Dan...
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
When did companies become "REQUIRED" to pass on anything to the consumer other than their products?

You are not owed anything Dan...
I never said anything remotely similar to "companies are required to pass on all savings to consumers", so lets not pretend I did ok?

This thread is turning into a bunch of people pretending I'm saying stuff I did not actually say. I'm not going to sit here and defend a bunch of arguments I'm not actually making.

I'm going to take all this distortion of what I'm saying to mean that you guys can not refute what I'm actually saying and are now resorting to the fictitious. That means I've won the argument IMO.
 

RyanTheRhino

Well-Known Member
It's insane that you're actually advocating the idea that people should be earning less when wages have been stagnate for 30 years.

Why is it always the burden of the average person to earn less money and never the top 1%?

Its inane you don't open a economics books and stop being so stubborn. Minimum wage was something done so people would get re-elected. It sounds nice and all but it dose not even work on paper.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
I never said anything remotely similar to "companies are required to pass on all savings to consumers", so lets not pretend I did ok?

This thread is turning into a bunch of people pretending I'm saying stuff I did not actually say. I'm not going to sit here and defend a bunch of arguments I'm not actually making.

I'm going to take all this distortion of what I'm saying to mean that you guys can not refute what I'm actually saying and are now resorting to the fictitious. That means I've won the argument IMO.
You said that the companies make a profit off the cheap labor and do not pass the savings on to the consumer.

I said they were not required to pass any of it on to the consumer.

You then said that you didnt say that.

Well Dan... Maybe you could figure out what you are saying the first time and say it properly and it will lead to less confusion.

Also, how could you possibly know what discounts in pricing are and/or are not being passed on to the consumers?
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
Pricing and discounts are all propaganda it is all fake it should be about quality of life- who cares if your burger cost 10 cents or 10 dollars, it's all relitive
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
You said that the companies make a profit off the cheap labor and do not pass the savings on to the consumer.

I said they were not required to pass any of it on to the consumer.

You then said that you didnt say that.

Well Dan... Maybe you could figure out what you are saying the first time and say it properly and it will lead to less confusion.

Also, how could you possibly know what discounts in pricing are and/or are not being passed on to the consumers?
that is absolutely inane.

dan was simply pointing out that your question was irrelevant to the point he made.

he discussed how labor costs have gone down and productivity has gone up, but that the consumer has not seen that benefit in the form of lower prices.

you asked if they had to, he pointed out that your question was irrelevant.

then you come back and try to accuse HIM of being confusing.

LOL!
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
That statement makes absolutely no sense.
Is life better if a car costs less but you lost your job making cars because it's cheaper to build them Mexico?
Is life better because women in the work place is the norm now- doubleing average household incomes? Or did it just raise prices and create new expences?
If they raise the minimum wadge to 20 $ an hour will it eliminate poverty?
If their is only so much stuff in the world, how much does that stuff cost? how much is it worth? how is that determined?
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
I disagree that it increases costs more than it increases inflation adjusted wages. Do you have some sort of evidence to support that?
It always works like that. That's how this system works. Guaranteed the people paying minimum wages, usually large companies, are filtering their money through other materials and then the wages end up in the hands of the worker, unless they are storing excessive inventory (which most big companies are smart enough to avoid) in which case they might be borrowing to just pay wages. In the last case, the workers benefit slightly more than they do in the first case, but in the long haul, they don't really benefit at all.

The proof, is in the pudding though. Look at the wealth disparity gap and how it has steadily increased for decades now. Policies like minimum wage, I don't want to say they are the main contributors of this, but anything that causes the creation of more money out of nothing definitely contributes. Mostly it's the Federal Reserve, and you can directly correlate the GINI coefficient with the expansion of credit and the money supply every time. This isn't to say there aren't other factors, but the Fed main driving factor. Just pull up some historical graphs, you will see.

If minimum wage were an effective policy the disparity between the rich and poor would not be so ever expanding and people wouldn't have an increasingly difficult time paying the bills. Which has been happening for a few decades now (again, there is information available proving this, although I somehow doubt you would argue this specific point).

I'm sort of rambling now as I often do, my apologies if I've gone off track.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
He said that companies get a discount on cheap labor (excessive generalization) and do not pass it on to the public. It is in post 81... go look it up.

In response I said that companies were not required to pass on any savings to the customer.

To which Dan said that he didnt say that companies were required to pass on any savings.

But if you look at his original point in post #81.. What else could he possibly mean? Dan, by making that comment, what else could you possibly mean?
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
It's insane that you're actually advocating the idea that people should be earning less when wages have been stagnate for 30 years.

Why is it always the burden of the average person to earn less money and never the top 1%?
I guess it is posts like this that make me think you don't entirely understand how the .1 (it's not the 1%) % game the system for their benefit. Do you think the owner of Halliburton gives a shit if he's taxed more? Of course not. He knows his company and in turn, he himself, is going to receive far far far far far far far far more than they give back. So big companies, and often big money (see: Soros et al) is quite ok with being taxed more. It frequently benefits them and their companies because of a corrupt crony government (which regardless of monetary system, tends to always happen anyway, but in a lot of ways it's easier in a fiat system where money can flow so much more easily and the effects of any new money are often quite lagged due to the trickle down effect, which by the way has nothing to do with supply side econ in this situation).
 

jpill

Well-Known Member
Ron Paul 2012.

The main issue people disagree with Ron Paul is his view on war. RP is not a war monger. IMO His view is correct. We shouldn't be bombing countries left&right , dragging wars out over 10 years.

Our country should not be trying to police the world.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
He said that companies get a discount on cheap labor (excessive generalization) and do not pass it on to the public. It is in post 81... go look it up.

In response I said that companies were not required to pass on any savings to the customer.

To which Dan said that he didnt say that companies were required to pass on any savings.

But if you look at his original point in post #81.. What else could he possibly mean? Dan, by making that comment, what else could you possibly mean?
it is pretty easy to see what he meant in the context of the debate, or if you simply finished reading his post:


  • They are just keeping the extra profits they make off of cheap labor, not passing it on to the consumer.​


 

beardo

Well-Known Member
it is pretty easy to see what he meant in the context of the debate, or if you simply finished reading his post:


  • They are just keeping the extra profits they make off of cheap labor, not passing it on to the consumer.​


And he had no retort to my argument of pricing being propaganda
He doddged the tough question
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
it is pretty easy to see what he meant in the context of the debate, or if you simply finished reading his post:


  • They are just keeping the extra profits they make off of cheap labor, not passing it on to the consumer.​


I am arguing that it is his mindset that a company should be some sort of welfare provider to the public rather than a for profit entity.

It is demonstrated in his arguments.
 

RyanTheRhino

Well-Known Member
I am arguing that it is his mindset that a company should be some sort of welfare provider to the public rather than a for profit entity.

It is demonstrated in his arguments.
because that would be a socialist system If every componey was non-profit.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
And he had no retort to my argument of pricing being propaganda
He doddged the tough question
For pricing and discounts to be propaganda there would have to be no cost to any item.

Pricing is based of the cost of the item plus the cost of the handling plus profit.

What you said made no mathematical sense.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I am arguing that it is his mindset that a company should be some sort of welfare provider to the public rather than a for profit entity.

It is demonstrated in his arguments.
well, feel free to argue that until you are blue in the face. that is not relevant to what he was talking about.
 

RyanTheRhino

Well-Known Member
And he had no retort to my argument of pricing being propaganda
He doddged the tough question

Yea i get you.


basically saying if a car cost $20 then a meal would cost $0.01, so who cares if you get payed $0.05/hour.Its all relativity and also adds to my minimum wage argument.
 
Top