Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
not if you let the glue dry before adding the macaroni and glitter.
The truth about minimum wage and income inequality
- Thread starter Rancho Cucamonga
- Start date
I would follow your assertion if the bankers had achieved their ordained plan for the Federal Reserve. But obviously they didn't--the system was a product of compromise, with all sides giving ground to reach a solution.
I find your telling of history questionable, especially since that quotation you provided is disputed and seems especially unreliable.
I wasn't aware that there had been a definitive conclusion on that. Whose conclusion are you referring to?
Who cares about what the price of gold is? No one should, since it's just as irrational a basis as fiat currency is.
But anyway, we all know about inflation, and we all know how we should be beating inflation, so that doesn't really bother me. Inflation reflects a very thoroughly reasoned judgment that its social benefits outweigh its social costs; I'm inclined to think the economists who make their careers on these ideas know better than I do.
Of course, I question inflation measurement for reasons I'm certain you're well acquainted with. Alternatively, I question how meaningful inflation numbers are considering that the value of technology and leisure is difficult to quantify compared to past periods. That said, I do believe both sides of the debate honestly believe the cases they're trying to prove.
If people in the Federal Reserve system rampantly jumped ship to banks to earn obscene amounts of money, I would find your suggestion compelling. Obviously some of these people are bankers and some of them have worked at banks, but not all of them. Many are lifelong academics, and many had only very limited experience in banking or the financial sector. The picture you want to paint just isn't a realistic one, especially considering that these people in the Federal Reserve would always--inevitably--have substantial access to all kinds of opportunities without having to do any nefarious scheming at all.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
All you need to know is the Joos are running the banks and want to take over the world while enslaving us.
RON PaUL 1812!!!
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i am therefore given to assume you have NOT read The Creature From Jekyll Island?
http://www.thevenusproject.com/downloads/ebooks/6479760-The-Creature-from-Jekyll-Island-by-Edward-Griffin.pdf
and are unaware of the comments made by David Rockerfeller in his own memoirs:
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidentsÉto attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
and in a leaked comment in front of the bildebergers meeting:
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time
Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
forty years."
"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world
if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a
world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers is surely preferable to the national
auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
and wish to continue believing the tale told by people who have every reason to lie, and gleefully admit their lies as a burden they must bear for "Our Own Good" because we are just not clever enough to choose things for ourselves.
this assumption and the assumption that all markets need a strong unwavering regulatory board of bureaucrats standing watch to ensure that everything runs smoothly are distinctly unamerican.
if you wish to assume i'm just some nutty as squirrel shit "bircher" and continue to support the idea that nameless faceless bureaucrats acting in secret for "Our Own Good" are the ideal of our constitution then i wish you the joy of it.
if youre interested in an alternative (in the sense that it is FACTUAL) view of the creation of the Fed and the people who did the deed, read the book offered above. it's a free pdf, not a contract to buy shit from amway.
I certainly have not read that, but I can't imagine why you think it would be credible. Don't give so much imagination to Loose Change or it will all start making sense.
Looking for criticism of that heavy monograph, I found the author's rebuttals to a serious economist, which basically go like this: "Well, yes, what the economist said is technically true while what I said technically is not true, but he said something misleading, and that makes what he said not true." Then he branches off into fanciful conspiratorial nonsense, tugging at and greasing whispers and rumors, suggesting what must have happened instead of recounting what actually happened. The author couldn't deny facts, so I suppose you won't be able to either.
You know, I think this quote makes far more sense when you add "such as my encounter with Castro" back to where it was excised. Now it sounds like you're taking the quote out of context to try and support this black helicopter nonsense.
Where'd you dig this one up? Appropriately, there's actually a helicopter flying around my apartment right now.
You'll have to show me where anyone gleefully admitted to anything. As for regulation, human nature necessitates that--complexity leads to evolution. It's an efficient outcome, not a conspiracy.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
loose change? hardly . the creature from jekyll island has been poo-pooed by the establishement as a fanciful tale since it was published, but it has never been refuted, only dismissed with a wave of the hand, much like youre doing now.
Heavy Monograph. dude. really? it;'s not nearly as suited to that description as any book by robert ludlum. phrases like "Heavy Monograph" and "Dense Symbolist Tome" or "Impenetrable Volume" are the sorts of things one says about a literary work one has NOT read to discourage the casual reader from ever even opening the book.
i suppose the alleged exchange to which you are referring so obliquely and implying griffin is mad would be found someplace on the interwebs? i would be interested in seeing said information but sadly, no link was provided.
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." ~ D Rockerfeller, the whole quote, from his memoirs including the "important" castro clause
ohh look the whole quote, yes, that changes everything. no i see he's just an internationalist who meets with castro, not a nasty old internationalist who DOESNT meet with castro.
it's so curious that you made such a huge deal about how the quote was incorrect but did not correct it, you simply made the (entirely inaccurate) claim that the few words omitted (for whatever reason) made the quote totally different. but it still reads the same to me.
this one has been floating about since 1988, and has NOT been denied or refuted, only disputed as impossible to verify, as the bildeberg meetings are so intensely secret.
so, there are no conspiracies, the Federal Reserve, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Bildebergers meet in secret for OUR benefit, and they are actually NOT growing more and more wealthy, while everybody on the outside, as a whole becomes poorer, thats just an illusion. in truth the great minds and noble spirits who are members of these e4xclusive organizations are really practicing Noblesse Oblige, and are sacrificing their time effort and wealth, to better the position of everybody else in the world, not themselves...
man, you must have bought a fucking shitload of swampland, at least 3 bridges and the eiffel tower. but do you have the Mona Lisa? see i got the original one, and ill sell it to you for $200k...
I did no such thing. I looked it up, read about it, and then read the author's refutation of someone's criticism, which was a point by point attack of the book's claims. Since the author couldn't defend his own claims--attempting to dismiss the criticism just as I described above--I don't see what there is to debate. I've already addressed claims and posited questions in this forum that are directly related; no one has really taken them on or developed much substantiation for the evil, brooding money plot.
If you want to develop anything, take up a claim and let's go.
I was being snarky. When I read that the author also hawks quack cancer cures under the banner of "Yeah, they cured cancer, they just won't share that because there's so much money to be made treating cancer," I began to question his fitness as a journalist.
You can start with his Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin. Then the piece refuting a criticism I mentioned: http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=meetflaherty&refpage=issues.
Here's a quote from the latter: "we must remember that the banking cartel is able to use tax dollars to pay 100% of its operating expenses with few questions asked about the nature of those expenses." The Fed's expenses were just transformed into some secret conspiracy account utilized by nefarious bankers. What does he want to ask about the nature of the expenses? How much is for the building? How much for salaries? This is the kind of dead end I'm talking about--he admits the truth and then tries to paint something suspicious out of it anyway.
But it gets better: "Flaherty attempts to minimize these facts by implying that the original, secret meeting was not important because the first draft of the legislation was rejected. What he does not say is that the second draft that was passed into law was essentially the same as the first. The primary difference was that Senator Aldrich’s name was removed from the title of the bill and replaced by the names of Carter Glass and Robert Owen" (emphasis added). This is totally false, as one simple Google search will demonstrate.
It pretty much goes on like that.
Did you remove the words from the quote yourself? If not, where did you get it, and why might they have removed the words? Don't you think it's strange to snip a few words out of a quote that's already so long? What made me suspicious about your quote is the fact that it only showed up in forums and on conspiracy web sites when I Googled it. Obviously someone thought removing those words mattered.
Quick poll for everyone else: Without the "Castro Clause," doesn't the quote strike you as describing the Bilderberg group? Interesting, since Rockefeller is a member of that group. Now with the Castro Clause, doesn't it just sound like Rockfeller is referring to his meetings with people like Castro, Gorbachev, and Saddam Hussein and saying he's proud of trying to open the world up?
You can tell me it was a meaningless change all you want, but the most damning fact is that someone actually bothered to change it.
1988? When I Googled it, one of the web sites was claiming it was from a 1991 speech. So much for that. Who put this quote out and when? Evidently no one knows. So what makes you think this is a legitimate quote?
Obviously there are conspiracies but legitimate ones: Watergate, Iran Contra, etc. I'm certain there are plenty of other conspiracies that actually exist, but I'm also certain those are generally very small. The more people you have involved, the longer something goes on, the more dastardly the motivations of the suspected conspirators get painted by people--let's just stop there. Stuff comes out because people talk or make mistakes, or because other people come looking.
When the evidence is just a whisper that can never be confirmed--wild speculation without any substantial basis--conspiracy looks far less likely. The rich have been getting richer for a very long time, and there are very good explanations for that which feature no secret conspiracies. What interest do they have in making other people poorer? Then who buys their stuff?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
as much fun as it is to spar on multiple independant points, and create lengthy and interwoven threads, i'm gonna slaice this one round what i feel is the key dispuited point
the determination of whether the Federal Reserve Act as passed was similar or dissimilar to the "first draft"
heres the full text of the federal reserve act:
http://www.archive.org/stream/federalreservea00owengoog/federalreservea00owengoog_djvu.txt
which is needless to say, easily described as a "Heavy Monograph" a "Dense Symbolist Tome" and an "Impenetrable Volume" with not a whiff of snark to be found. it really is a complex brobdingnangian impernetrable web of provisions, amendments, changes, legal rulings, bureaucratic decisions and legislative opinions.
curiously i have been unable to locate a copy of the full text of the "National Reserve Association" bill promulgated by Sen. Nelson Aldrich (S. 4431 of the 62nd Congress, 2nd session, Dec. 1911)
but since you have emphatically declared :
i can say that my search for the "Aldrich Bill" turned up many assertions which are diametrically opposed to your own calim such as:
"While the Aldrich Bill was ultimately defeated, the eventual Federal Reserve Act remained remarkably similar to Aldrich’s original plan. See, for example, William Greider, Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), 277. Greider writes, “The Bill drafted by Willis and his boss,Representative Carter Glass of Virginia, differed in detail but not in fundamentals fromthe Aldrich plan: a privatelycontrolled network of regional reserve banks that would be given government powers.”~http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~histecon/crisis-next/1907/docs/Chen-Warburg_Final_Paper.pdf (page 3 footnote 6)
which led to:
"The eventual Federal Reserve Act, which took shape by the fall of 1913, was similar to the earlier plan launched by Senator Aldrich, except, of course, that private banks were not given as much control. Also, another primary difference in the Federal Reserve Act was the provision that all nationally chartered banks must be members of the Federal Reserve System." ~http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3816.
yes... that was published by the Minneapolis federal reserve bank itself. ohh my.
so, is the "Aldrich Bill", the National Reserve Association Bill still utterly dissimilar from the Federal Reserve Act? it seems the Minneapolis Federal Reserve doesn't think they are so dissimilar.
the determination of whether the Federal Reserve Act as passed was similar or dissimilar to the "first draft"
heres the full text of the federal reserve act:
http://www.archive.org/stream/federalreservea00owengoog/federalreservea00owengoog_djvu.txt
which is needless to say, easily described as a "Heavy Monograph" a "Dense Symbolist Tome" and an "Impenetrable Volume" with not a whiff of snark to be found. it really is a complex brobdingnangian impernetrable web of provisions, amendments, changes, legal rulings, bureaucratic decisions and legislative opinions.
curiously i have been unable to locate a copy of the full text of the "National Reserve Association" bill promulgated by Sen. Nelson Aldrich (S. 4431 of the 62nd Congress, 2nd session, Dec. 1911)
but since you have emphatically declared :
i can only assume you've read the "Aldrich Bill", or can at least point me to the resource...
i can say that my search for the "Aldrich Bill" turned up many assertions which are diametrically opposed to your own calim such as:
"While the Aldrich Bill was ultimately defeated, the eventual Federal Reserve Act remained remarkably similar to Aldrich’s original plan. See, for example, William Greider, Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), 277. Greider writes, “The Bill drafted by Willis and his boss,Representative Carter Glass of Virginia, differed in detail but not in fundamentals fromthe Aldrich plan: a privatelycontrolled network of regional reserve banks that would be given government powers.”~http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~histecon/crisis-next/1907/docs/Chen-Warburg_Final_Paper.pdf (page 3 footnote 6)
which led to:
"The eventual Federal Reserve Act, which took shape by the fall of 1913, was similar to the earlier plan launched by Senator Aldrich, except, of course, that private banks were not given as much control. Also, another primary difference in the Federal Reserve Act was the provision that all nationally chartered banks must be members of the Federal Reserve System." ~http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3816.
yes... that was published by the Minneapolis federal reserve bank itself. ohh my.
so, is the "Aldrich Bill", the National Reserve Association Bill still utterly dissimilar from the Federal Reserve Act? it seems the Minneapolis Federal Reserve doesn't think they are so dissimilar.
This was legitimately difficult to find (which is saying something--if this is the beast, why don't the conspiracy sites have it posted? Why did I have to dig through some library's PDF file of a report containing the bill?), but I succeeded: http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/files/124/FRA-LH_S-Doc-62-243.pdf. Page 43.
"Remarkably similar" and "similar" mean that elements of the Aldrich plan ended up in the final bill, just like elements of the rival plan did. No one's denying that, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that bankers had stuff from their plan for banking adopted in the final law, since they probably had some practical insights on banking. But they certainly aren't the same bill. The substantive and most meaningful difference between the bills is that the Aldrich plan was for a totally private corporation by, of, and for the then-existing bankers. The Federal Reserve Act has a central bank headed and controlled by a Board appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, which also appoints some of the directors of the regional banks (with others appointed to represent the public). Instead of the banks controlling the central bank, the federal government does, and it gets a substantial voice on the boards of the private regional banks (which don't distribute any profits beyond a fixed dividend on paid-in capital). The Federal Reserve Act is a beautiful compromise that blends the public and private interests being advocated by extremists on either side.
Edit: Your link actually isn't the full text of the Federal Reserve Act but some kind of academic monograph written about it. Here's the full text of the Federal Reserve Act: http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fract.htm.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
shit youre right, i posted the wrong federal reserve act page...
however, Paul M Warburg (of the Warburg banking cartel in germany) who was present at the jekyll Island Meeting where aldrich's bill was drafted declared that the federal reserve act (as originally passed) was substantially identical to the original bill he helped draft in " ...this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy." ~Paul M Warburg
~http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1821752?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102023483381
apparently Mr Warburg felt the federal reserve act was close enough to his original vision to celebrate it's passage, and make a packet of money for himself as the chairman of the Manhattan Acceptance Bank, before become the founding chairman of the CFR.
yeah, apparently youre the only one who see the aldrich plan and the federal reserve act as being different.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Doc,
Just because that Aldrich dude got his golden payment, doesn't proove The Federal Reserve(Rainmaker), is coming to close your loop.
Just because that Aldrich dude got his golden payment, doesn't proove The Federal Reserve(Rainmaker), is coming to close your loop.
I don't think this page really says what you want it to say. This text is saying that the mechanics of the system are the same, which shouldn't be surprising--it's a central bank paired with regional banks--but control is different. I seem to recall saying that the most substantive difference between the bills was control of the system. Warburg then goes on to describe another substantive difference between the bills (note issuance) and describe the National Reserve Bill as superior.shit youre right, i posted the wrong federal reserve act page...
however, Paul M Warburg (of the Warburg banking cartel in germany) who was present at the jekyll Island Meeting where aldrich's bill was drafted declared that the federal reserve act (as originally passed) was substantially identical to the original bill he helped draft in " ...this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy." ~Paul M Warburg
~http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1821752?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102023483381
apparently Mr Warburg felt the federal reserve act was close enough to his original vision to celebrate it's passage, and make a packet of money for himself as the chairman of the Manhattan Acceptance Bank, before become the founding chairman of the CFR.
yeah, apparently youre the only one who see the aldrich plan and the federal reserve act as being different.
Not that it should matter, since this would represent the opinion of just one man. I had considered posting a quote from the New York Times complaining that the Federal Reserve Act was so inferior to the National Reserve Bill but opted against it on that basis. I imagined your response would be to dredge up a quote from another newspaper saying the opposite.
Maybe I should repeat the quote you've been trying to defend at this point: "What he does not say is that the second draft that was passed into law was essentially the same as the first. The primary difference was that Senator Aldrich’s name was removed from the title of the bill and replaced by the names of Carter Glass and Robert Owen." According to Griffin, the Federal Reserve Act is almost identical to the National Reserve Bill, the "primary difference" being the name on the bill.
It's just not truthful to say that there aren't substantive differences between the bills because there are fundamental differences. You claim otherwise in your refutation of an argument--not mentioning any of the things I did in this post--in order to support what I presume is the thesis of the whole book, which is that this secret banker plan was enacted into law as the Federal Reserve. How can you rant about the banking cabal destroying the country if the damning plan you're trying to describe wasn't even realized? That, I assert, is why the author tried to posit that claim, not because it actually reflected the truth.
Edit: On Warburg's career:
Yes, Warburg probably played a huge part in drafting the original Aldrich plan. Many elements of the system's design were adopted from that plan. Again, we shouldn't be surprised to see bankers having insights about banking. To me that would be equivalent to being suspicious of an engineer's work on a building. So why are people so suspicious of bankers? I think it's just because they make a lot of money (seemingly) without doing very much. People resent that. Obviously they're out to screw us all over, though, surely just as every other professional is. Why would you ever accept a banking system designed by a banker? The idea is ludicrous, just as much as a heart surgeon performing heart surgery.
Warburg was going to make lots of money regardless because he was a banker who knew stuff about banking. Why are you suspicious about a banker being involved in bank reform and then working as a banker? Because surely it was for his profit, right, and not just to make the banking system safer and more stable?
You make a mistake in presuming that the bankers weren't personally interested in the latter, ignoring the events that gave impetus to creating the central bank in the first place. All these bankers had all of their money invested in bank stock, so a run on the bank that destroys the bank would wipe them out. What if these bankers just asked themselves this simple question: "What if in the next crisis there is no JP Morgan to stand up and save the system from collapse?" Don't you think this would constitute a substantial personal motivation to build a safer and more stable banking system?
I haven't found anything outside of a forum/banking conspiracy web site that claims Warburg made an inordinate amount of money. Being on the Board of Directors (the only post-Fed positions I've found) is not how you make buckets of money from a company, and it doesn't have any relevance to ownership. Boards aren't involved in day-to-day operations of companies.
canndo
Well-Known Member
More hokum and bunk Rob, Prove your statement. There is no correlation between minimum wage and unemployment.
canndo
Well-Known Member
More hokum and bunk Rob, Prove your statement. There is no correlation between minimum wage and unemployment.
That's RIGHT damn it. inner city youths should be paid whatever the employer wants to pay, never mind that those same inner city kids don't have the choice to go elsewhere because transportation outside of the confines of their areas is too expensive to make up for the short pay they are forced to receive - or not work at all.
so you see, there really is no difference and Friedman isn't looking at the big picture.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
It is irrelevant. No employer would want to hire Rob Roy at any wage.
deprave
New Member
Yea then they would have more jobs and thus get a wider variety of experience, they could probably even work at the school and do fun educational jobs, they could be a parking lot attendant or something while they study but instead parking lot owners can only hire so many people, they could do jobs that are normal volunteer jobs and get some pay, they would probably rather do some of this stuff then to work at wal-mart or something even if it was less, instead they have to work at walmart. (great experience lol)
I would of killed for a job at a computer shop in highschool for 3$ an hour or something. Instead of working part-time at retail and fast food. Then I would of been spending my time more productively, getting the experience for my adult career, and still have spending money.
We already have an exemption like this for kids 15 and under in Michigan, it should probably be specific to small business only however.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Minimum wage laws are not an impediment to market dynamics. The idea that it is, generally, is taught to students of economics usually under the heading of "Price Ceilings and Floors".
The main point in the free-marketeer's argument is understandable from a theoretical perspective, but it neglects a subject known as ELASTICITY.
Elasticity is a measure of how much some vector changes with respect to changes in another.
So for the Own-Price Elasticity of some "widget", the equation looks like this:
η = %ΔQ/%ΔP = ∂Q/∂P * P/Q ; P=price, Q=quantity
Now here's the "fantasy" version of what minimum wage laws do to society:
The Green section is a Deadweight Loss, and in this situation, one can definitely argue there are serious market distortions created by such legislation, since both Consumers (Employers) and Suppliers (Unemployed) lose a great deal of potential surplus. Note also the elasticity of the market curves are fairly unitary (i.e. 1:1).
But what is the reality as implied in empirical studies by the likes of Card & Krueger, or Wicks-Lim & Pollin ?
A far more INELASTIC market Demand and Supply for Labour.
The theoretical Deadweight Loss is smaller than fantasized, but even this is questionable, since there are other externalities that come into play as well (such as multiplier/ripple effects, consumer choice, tax revenue, etc.). Even Milton Friedman was aware of this market state being possible (pg.75 of Price Theory, and his "backward-bending curve" for example), but failed to acknowledge its existence in the real economy at ground level, choosing instead to promulgate Neo-Liberal ideals.
The key point of this being there are no (or negligible) negative effects caused by minimum wage laws,
and in fact, may have positive externalities where they can stimulate economic activity in the aggregate,
especially in the lower quintiles of income (where this is a primary factor).
I think a discussion of the social marginal benefits and costs of Living Wage subsidies would be a more fruitful endeavour than this tired, anachronistic debate...
But heeeeyyyy.... that's just my opinion.
The main point in the free-marketeer's argument is understandable from a theoretical perspective, but it neglects a subject known as ELASTICITY.
Elasticity is a measure of how much some vector changes with respect to changes in another.
So for the Own-Price Elasticity of some "widget", the equation looks like this:
η = %ΔQ/%ΔP = ∂Q/∂P * P/Q ; P=price, Q=quantity
Now here's the "fantasy" version of what minimum wage laws do to society:
The Green section is a Deadweight Loss, and in this situation, one can definitely argue there are serious market distortions created by such legislation, since both Consumers (Employers) and Suppliers (Unemployed) lose a great deal of potential surplus. Note also the elasticity of the market curves are fairly unitary (i.e. 1:1).
But what is the reality as implied in empirical studies by the likes of Card & Krueger, or Wicks-Lim & Pollin ?
A far more INELASTIC market Demand and Supply for Labour.
The theoretical Deadweight Loss is smaller than fantasized, but even this is questionable, since there are other externalities that come into play as well (such as multiplier/ripple effects, consumer choice, tax revenue, etc.). Even Milton Friedman was aware of this market state being possible (pg.75 of Price Theory, and his "backward-bending curve" for example), but failed to acknowledge its existence in the real economy at ground level, choosing instead to promulgate Neo-Liberal ideals.
The key point of this being there are no (or negligible) negative effects caused by minimum wage laws,
and in fact, may have positive externalities where they can stimulate economic activity in the aggregate,
especially in the lower quintiles of income (where this is a primary factor).
I think a discussion of the social marginal benefits and costs of Living Wage subsidies would be a more fruitful endeavour than this tired, anachronistic debate...
But heeeeyyyy.... that's just my opinion.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Way too scientific.
Canada has a higher minimum wage and universal healthcare
Their currency is worth more and their economy is doing better
I win the argument
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Be my guest. You can freeze your balls off if you want to win that badly.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
so, the central banking law that passed was different in some measure (by warburg's own description, not substantially different, and certainly not different enough to make him reject it) so therefore the secret jekyl island meeting is moot, the fictions created by the banking cartels that the federal reserve bill would curtail their powers, and the claims by the richest men in the world that they were preparing this glorious future for us, for our own good means that the federal reserve is a good thing?
nope. not buying it.
the conspiracy on jekyl island laid the groundwork and to get their agenda passed they had to tweak the plan a little (by warburgs estimation, not much at all) and then they got it through thanks to the cupidity of woodrow wilson.
they have been fucking us ever since, by charging us for the privilege of printing our money and lifting our gold stores to who knows where, leaving fiat currency in it's place. you can make all the grand claims you please and craft all the arguments you like, but im not an economist, i dont buy into their games and i dont believe in their bullshit math. you cant build an economy thats stable by propping it up with paper. our economy is eventually gonna collapse, and just like zimbabwe, we will have to draft a new currency and replace the old worthless devalued dollar with ObamaBucks or perhaps something tied to the value of the chinese Wan.
your arguments are dressed up as reason, but their obvious irrationality is peeking out under their skirts.
The Creature From Jekyll Island is not written as a dry treatise on the insustainability of fiuat currencies, its a primer for those who are NOT economics nerds on how the system REALLY works, those with money and power, gaming the system to increase their wealth and power untill they control the economy. thats what they did, and thats how they did it. arguing that his opinions are flawed and his judgement is questionable based on reading the "criticisms" section of the wikipedia article doesnt make him wrong.
you cant plaster those who question the validity and even the legality of the federal reserve with the tar brush of thre Troofers, or the Chemtrail loons, or the New World Order/Secret Jew Conspiracy crazies, cuz we aint crazy. you picked arounf the edges and tried to discredit the author rather than discussing his work, you told me what arguments i would use, ratherthan discussing the arguments i made, and dismissed every criticism as irrelevant, since the fed is "just the way things are" and therefore we should all just shut up and take it in the ass.
that may be cool for you, but i am not ever going to accept that the federal reserve is anything but a cartel, run for it's own benefit at the expense of the people. thats the way all central banks work, except canada's since they nationalized that shit, and maed their central bank a servant of their parliament rather than forcing the parliament to serve their bank.