|
1000101 posted:(what free market solution is there to poverty?) Asked and answered, statist.  Murray fuckin' Rothbard posted:Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:This number is grossly disingenuous (and deliciously ironic considering how you accused us of that) because it fails to take into account the much larger group of people who would directly benefit from proposed minimum wage increases. Not to mention the number of people who will benefit indirectly by having stronger bargaining positions from which to negotiate their salaries. The 4% number is a transparent ploy to try and hand-wave the issue of stagnant and sub-living wages by implying that it's an issue that affects a tiny group of people instead of a massive chunk of the population. Also isn't 4% of the workforce like 6 million people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
If minimum goes up people won't get jobs, that's why I get hired back at my comic book store when I moved home despite minimum going up almost two dollars in the year I was gone, because it's an onerous restriction crushing business
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think this is a good time to talk about the limits of empirical studies when looking at social phenomenon. Empiricism in the hard sciences is pretty straightforward because studies can be conducted with great specificity and are easily reproducible by other scientists. In contrast, human behavior in a complex economy is much more difficult to evaluate purely on an empirical basis. I've studied this issue for a while, and what has come up again and again is an empirical economist releases a paper that purports to prove a specific assertion, and then subsequent economists find it impossible to reproduce the results found because they cannot isolate the variables with regards to human action in a complex environment. Well, it's not shocking that you don't understand how science works. Science doesn't actually make positive statements, it shows that successively more specific null hypotheses are inconsistent with reality. It doesn't do this in a single study, even for the hard sciences. Bleeding edge applied physics papers these days are often very stats heavy, and the author's interpretation of their results is frequently shown to be off. But, over time, theories are effectively disproven by showing that there is an infinitesimal chance they are consistent with observed reality in study after study, until they have been winnowed down to a single likely explanation for a single question at a single level of scope. Then, using that, scientists develop new theories to destroy. It's entirely possible to build good models for complex systems, as long as you hold to a scope and accept that it's not going to be 100% accurate. More than that, it's _easy_ to show that particularly bad theoretical models don't work. Which is what's happened to Austrian economists' theories again and again. jrodefeld posted:I don't think a study from 2006 qualifies it as "old". Bolly for you. It's an active domain that has been getting a lot of attention lately, and you are pointing at the discourse from years ago. You are also not addressing Vital's point, which is that it's old enough to have a discussion about it, which you missed and, now that it's been pointed out to you, are ignoring. Science works because it's an ongoing process - no single paper, even a meta study, even a meta study of meta studies on a subject, is immune to criticism regardless of when it's levied. Simply put, if there is a reason to doubt a paper, it should be doubted until a convincing followup handles the concerns. jrodefeld posted:There are a few more things I think it is important to say on this subject. The national unemployment figures are bogus for a number of reasons related to political pressure to make the numbers look better. If a person has been unemployed past a certain amount of time, even if they WANT to find work were it available but they eventually stop looking, they are not counted as being unemployed. No. Just no. The official unemployment rate is only one of many consistent metrics that the Bureau of Labor Statistics puts out. Researchers who have a compelling reason for using another one can do so, but they generally don't because the discourse has decided that the official unemployment rate is a good, useful metric. jrodefeld posted:There are a large number of groups that are made up of lower skilled people who have been unemployed for a long time due to the minimum wage laws and these accumulated casualties of these laws are not considered in these studies. [citation needed] One thing that you keep ignoring is that there are plenty of people getting paid less than minimum wage. Yes, it's illegal, but desperate people are willing to take money under the table to do those jobs none-the-less. Many are undocumented immigrants, but there are native born Americans doing these jobs too. jrodefeld posted:Another thing to consider is the way in which political pressure, as in advocacy for a particular policy has corrupted the economic profession and clouded the impartial scientific judgment of many of the economists who participate in the studies that purport to show no negative effects of minimum wage laws. The modern economy is incredibly complex and it is extremely easy to subtly adjust one variable and/or limit the scope of the study such that the negative repercussions of the minimum wage are disguised. You do realize that most of the partisan think tanks fall on your side, not ours? That the moneyed interest favors suppressing minimum wage? That "anyone who doesn't agree with me is corrupt" is just being an rear end in a top hat? That you accusing others of willfully and intentionally ignoring evidence to follow a narrative is literally painfully ironic? jrodefeld posted:What if we had a very deep depression and just as we were in recovery, the minimum wage was raised by a dollar? Then unemployment dropped. Would you say that the minimum wage was the CAUSE of the drop in unemployment? Or was the drop in unemployment more likely attributed to the overall economic recovery which resulted from innumerable other factors? Maybe the unemployment rate would have dropped even faster if the minimum wage hadn't been raised. Fortunately, a vast amount of work has gone into developing methodologies for establishing causality. Also LOL because this is exactly what you did that I debunked here with plenty of graphs of my own in a post that you conveniently ignored like you do with most substantive responses: Etalommi posted:Oh, look, you again show you don't know how to do something as basic as read a graph. This graph actually shows that the teenage unemployment rate stays the same until the economy crashes, at which point it goes up like most other kinds of unemployment (http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2012/recession/pdf/recession_bls_spotlight.pdf). jrodefeld posted:So since there are some studies showing negative employment effects from the minimum wage and others showing none, are we to throw up our hands and say that we just don't have a loving clue about this important topic? Hardly. There is a role for sound economic reasoning and logical deduction. Science doesn't stop because people disagree. Papers on a subject get published, critiqued, incorporated into the literature or ignored, until the gestalt moves in a direction. Communicating this is one of the places where science currently has enormous issues, as the public is subjected to an onslaught of contradicting papers in isolation and overblown press releases. But that doesn't mean that it's all useless or it's impossible to extract meaningful knowledge from it. jrodefeld posted:There is a very important reason why statements of economic law by Austrian economists are preceded by the latin phrase ceterus paribus, which as I've stated means "all things being equal". We cannot control for every variable in a complex economy, so to logically understand what is going on we have to compare apples to apples. We have to hold everything else constant in order to isolate the role of the minimum wage in employment. No, it's because they are pompous blowhards. No poo poo everything is based on axioms and assumptions, but most people are able to state their givens without douchebag ostentatiousness. jrodefeld posted:These are the sorts of things that these studies find difficult to adequately control for. However, with recourse to economic law, we know that demand curves slope downward and as the price of a good increases, the demand for that good will decrease with all other things being equal. Even the purely logical theoretical economics is comprised of more than just supply and demand curves you dolt. See any of the explanations of inelasticity for one of many, many examples of how it's more complicated. jrodefeld posted:It is true that if a price increase is tiny enough there won't be any obvious decrease in demand that is generally visible. If the minimum wage was increased by five cents, you could not produce any study that would show employers laying off massive numbers of workers in the next six months. Maybe a few workers will be let go over an entire State by companies who are barely making ends meet and even the tiniest increase in their cost of doing business will hurt them. These won't register with the empirical economists but the insidious effect of slow and steady increases in the minimum wage will accumulate. Maybe these workers will eventually find their way back into the workforce, and maybe they'll be resigned to permanent unemployment. So there is some threshold beneath which it does not have a negative effect but above which it does. Cool, I think everyone ITT agrees with that. This is something we can work off of. The question then becomes "how do we figure out where the threshold lies?" That's not something that can be reasoned out from first principles. It's something that must be measured. And guess what? That's exactly what economic scientists are doing. Why did I have to wade through all this word salad of you discarding empiricism for you to essentially agree with everyone except about the amplitude of change needed to be detrimental? Learn 2 write. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Hey if someone could give a page reference or permalink to that Rothbard quote giving away the game on the purpose of "race science" that would be swell, googling is kind of making it fall apart for me. e: doubtless due to the effect of statism on my tender, ill-bred brainpan
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Race! That Murray Book, his (glowing) review of The Bell Curve. Took me a bit to find it too. It's from Lew Rockwell's site (and a transcription from his newsletter), so stay in private/incognito mode if you want your google searches to not be abhorrent. The bit quoted in the thread is at the very end, but this is from the beginning:Murray Rothbard, non-racist posted:Well, one vital and recent social change has been not only truly revolutionary but has occurred at almost dizzying speed. Namely: Until literally mid-October 1994, it was shameful and taboo for anyone to talk publicly or write about, home truths which everyone, and I mean everyone, knew in their hearts and in private: that is, almost self-evident truths about race, intelligence, and heritability. What used to be widespread shared public knowledge about race and ethnicity among writers, publicists, and scholars, was suddenly driven out of the public square by Communist anthropologist Franz Boas and his associates in the 1930s, and it has been taboo ever since. Essentially, I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary. If only our opinions on race had stayed where they were in the 1930s!  edit: oh, oh! Also this: quote:Of the two authors of The Bell Curve, Charles Murray is the best-known in conservative circles as a neoconservative/left-libertarian researcher whose elaborate statistics confirmed what everyone knew anyway: that the welfare state injures, rather than benefits, its alleged beneficiaries, and only aggravates the problem. So from now on, when you see JRod mention the idea of left-libertarians and wonder who he means, there you go. "Left-libertarian" means Charles loving Murray. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Jrod lists Tom Woods, a senior fellow at Mises.org, as his 10th most influential thinker. I too like Tom Woods. Here's my favorite talk from him, found at Mises.org. Tom Woods at 00:15 posted:So, you're all familiar with Plessy v Ferguson, which established the rule of separate but equal... Go on.... Tom Woods at 00:50 posted:The issue before the court was whether the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in fact prohibited racial segregation. The argument was that the 14th amendment called for the expansion of the equal protection of the law for the people in the states. The court came to the conclusion that nobody who drafted the 14th Amendment seriously imagined that it prohibited segregation. So that as long as the segregated facilities were in some sense equal, then the 14th Amendment requirement was satisfied. Hence, the doctrine of “Separate but Equal.” You see, we can't forget that the 14th Amendment says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So Tom Woods is right. As long as the schools and water fountains and restaurants are equal, and there's no evidence they aren't, then segregation is perfectly constitutional. You can't argue with the constitution, folks! We're stuck with it. Tom Woods at 01:36 posted:But then we got in 1954, this Brown v Board of Education decision.... I agree. It's like, what if some egghead professor came up tomorrow and said “Free speech is actually harmful to people!” and had a bunch of data and studies showing it. Would we just overturn the First Amendment? No, and we shouldn't have soiled our constitution with Brown v Board either. Tom Woods at 03:39 posted:And so this way, they could say they weren't really going against Plessy, just acting on new information. So, in a unanimous decision, they decided that the racial segregation of schools by law was not constitutional, and that the desegregation of the schools had to commence. You see? The Constitution knows best, and all-black schools are what blacks crave. I'm only looking out for the blacks here, and our Constitution. Did you know that mixing in black kids to a school with a majority of white students can be harmful to their self-esteem? I wonder why that is. We'll probably never know. Tom Woods at 05:18 posted:… after the trial, an attorney for the NAACP said about the studies, “I may have described them as 'crap.' Shout out to my black friend, which proves this lecture is Not Racist. Tom Woods at 05:43 posted:This decision inspired a lot of activists, lawyers, and Activist Judges. They said, if the Supreme Court can get away with this, with no legal authority, then maybe they could just circumnavigate the usual legislative channels of the Republic, and impose all kinds of values on the country.... Exactly. Those damned activist judges imposed their salacious values of ending Jim Crow, and allowing women to choose what to do with their bodies. We should have just done the peaceful thing and let some states have segregation and illegal abortion. Tom Woods at 07:00 posted:Following Brown, a number of cases reached the Supreme Court involving the desgregation of all kinds of places: beaches, golf courses, lunch counters, hotels and other public accomodations, all using the same reasoning from Brown, which obviously did not apply. But the Court ruled segregation unconstitutional in each of these instances, with nothing more than a citation of Brown. So whatever social outcome these Justices wanted, could be brought about by Judicial Fiat.... most people applauded this without thinking that someday the Supreme Court could do this in a decision that they didn't like! Exactly. We don't like desegregation and access to safe legal abortion. Just imagine if the Supreme Court ever hears a case about gay marriage! Tom Woods at 08:15 posted:Green was an integration decision.... the county had a free choice plan, where anybody could choose to go to whatever school they wanted. But none of the white students chose to go to the black school, and very few black students went to the white school. But they were perfectly free to do so... Tom Woods at 11:24 posted:… So now you have forced busing, where in some cases, students are being bussed for over an hour one way, so as to satisfy some racial balancing requirement. Tom Woods at 12:42 posted:So, I think its worth considering, what were the effects on black educational outcomes as a result of these policies. We would at least have to expect, that after billions spent on these busing schemes, that at least there is some good news to report in terms of educational performance. Go on.... Tom Woods at 13:25 posted:Well, I want to begin by noting, the literature even before Brown, said that segregation in schools damages blacks' self esteem and impacts their educational performance.... desegregation would eliminate these negative impacts, and would also reduce the level of prejudice of whites against blacks. This is why I love Tom Woods. He gets right to the point: re-segregate the schools, they weren't that bad, and having socioeconomic disadvantages is much worse than being a member of a given race. And, we all know that those things aren't correlated, nor are they essentially the product of a system of institutional racial prejudice. Tom Woods at 15:32 posted:Liberal academics believed that it didn't matter if schools were segregated by law, or if they were segregated as the innocent result of racially discriminatory housing patterns. You see? Redlining was and is a purely innocent practice, as I've been saying for years. Tom Woods at 15:47 posted:By the 90's, billions of dollars had been spent, neighborhoods destroyed, racial harmony disrupted, and black educational performance was still low. Now we needed “culturally sensitive” materials. We had to eliminate skills-based tracking. Tom Woods at 20:13 posted:Are we seriously to believe that an anti-black, pro-Asian bias permeates the American Education System? So the negroid race simply cannot learn. What is to be done, Dr. Woods? Tom Woods at 22:20 posted:Various explanations have been adavanced.... a greater prevalence of single-parent families in the black community... as well as cultural differences... reflected for example in parents' expectations of student performance. These points are typically ignored. Tom Woods at 24:08 posted:The largest gains for blacks students came in the majority black schools, and the highest gains for white students came in the majority white schools. I agree with this in its entirety. Resegregate the schools now! Dr. Woods goes on to explain how the barbarous Civil Rights Act of 1964 unduly restricts businesses, because they can't base hiring on racial discrimination. No good employer would ever do that, but Activist Judges expanded the CRA to outlaw intelligence tests because they have a disproportionate racial impact. But that clearly isn't any fault of society! That's blacks' own fault! Jrod, what do you think about Dr. Woods' conclusions? Surely any true Libertarian agrees that the state should be able to forcibly separate the races into distinct schools, that the state should use its men with guns to prevent women from seeking abortions, and that employers should be able to discriminate in hiring based on racially prejudicial factors. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:If minimum goes up people won't get jobs, that's why I get hired back at my comic book store when I moved home despite minimum going up almost two dollars in the year I was gone, because it's an onerous restriction crushing business Now hang on a hot minute there, are you claiming that the minimum wage going up didn't change the number of people needed to adequately staff the comic book store? The store didn't fire half its staff on the assumption that the higher paid workers would suddenly work 20 hour days? Well that's just crazy talk, I praxed it out (see:hosed a watermellon), and the result I got was that a store that needs 10 employees at current minimum wage will only need 5 once the minimum wages goes up to $15!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Now hang on a hot minute there, are you claiming that the minimum wage going up didn't change the number of people needed to adequately staff the comic book store? The store didn't fire half its staff on the assumption that the higher paid workers would suddenly work 20 hour days?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Nvm
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
It's interesting that Woods contrasts "settled peacefully on a state by state basis" with a Supreme Court decision. Are Supreme Court decisions not peaceful for some reason? Are state-level laws more peacefully enforced than federal-level policy? Hm, I wonder why he might say such a thing...
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It's interesting that Woods contrasts "settled peacefully on a state by state basis" with a Supreme Court decision. Are Supreme Court decisions not peaceful for some reason? Are state-level laws more peacefully enforced than federal-level policy? Hm, I wonder why he might say such a thing...
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It's interesting that Woods contrasts "settled peacefully on a state by state basis" with a Supreme Court decision. Are Supreme Court decisions not peaceful for some reason? Are state-level laws more peacefully enforced than federal-level policy? Hm, I wonder why he might say such a thing... When the supreme court declares something, it's enforced by Men With Guns, and cannot possibly be peaceful. As opposed to Jim Crow, which as everyone knows was nothing but peaceful agreement on all sides.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Here's a question for jrode: Answer Jrod. Do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It's interesting that Woods contrasts "settled peacefully on a state by state basis" with a Supreme Court decision. Are Supreme Court decisions not peaceful for some reason? Are state-level laws more peacefully enforced than federal-level policy? Hm, I wonder why he might say such a thing... People unfairly call Woods a "Confederate Apologist," or a "Historical Revisionist." This is just liberal clap-trap. Woods is not a Confederate Apologist nor a Historical Revisionist. Dr. Woods is a defender of states' rights, who believes that the Confederacy had a right to secede, for whatever reason it wanted, and that the real reason for the Civil War was not slavery at all, but rather States' Rights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
I was hoping the Tom Woods shoe would wait to drop until we got some good discussion on the "Rothbard giving Charles 'Bell Curve' Murray a sloppy blowjob" thing, but gently caress it, throwing both at our resident closet-white-supremacist should be fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I was hoping the Tom Woods shoe would wait to drop until we got some good discussion on the "Rothbard giving Charles 'Bell Curve' Murray a sloppy blowjob" thing, but gently caress it, throwing both at our resident closet-white-supremacist should be fun. To be fair, I set the trap on Tom Woods days ago. Jrod just refused to create joinder with my posts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Approximately 4% of the US domestic working force earns the current minimum wage. I don't at all mean to demean this group of people because I want everyone, including those with the least working experience and productivity to have the maximum opportunity to move up to a comfortable middle class existence. But I can't help them by destroying the first rung on the ladder. That hurts the most vulnerable people disproportionately. The reason you mention that bullshit statistic (which you didn't even site the source of, hmmm) is that A) That statistic is for people working at the federal minimum wage. People working at a State raised minimum wage are not part of that statistic. B) People working UNDER that statistic are estimated at 3 million (I'd give you a source, but I'm too tired of you being an rear end in a top hat to care). jrodefeld posted:Businessmen don't have carte-blanche to set wages or prices for their products at any rate they want unless some benevolent democratic State forces them not to make "obscene" profits or lower wages to so-called "slave-wages" (itself a gross misnomer). This is a leftist fallacy that needs to be understood as such. I worked in university dining last year, and one day they came in to see how much they would make from our loving products. Our "southern comfort bowl" (the most popular product from our 'specials' the previous semester) was priced at over 200% the price to produce. I remember because I worked for $8.25 an hour and everyone who arrived was wearing a loving suit. Businessmen have agency you loving idiot jrodefeld posted:At the same time, there are 16-21 year old young adults in the neighborhood who are unemployed. They may want to be employed and earn a few bucks to go out to eat, go on a date, see a movie or just create a small savings so that when they move out of their parents house they've got a leg up on everyone else. Most importantly they would have developed a work history and track record of employment that will help them when they apply for higher paying jobs in the future. Yes, those poor 16 to 21 year old young adults will suddenly want to work when they can make less, economics told me so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:CITES AN INTRO TO ECONOMICS TEXTBOOK AS IF IT WERE A STUDY
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Yes, those poor 16 to 21 year old young adults will suddenly want to work when they can make less, economics told me so. This will produce more profit for the owners. Hurray! The long term question of "how, exactly, will the business sector aimed at the poors function when they have even less money to get preyed on" is irrelevant, due to the action axiom. The other long term question of "How do we keep the poors, who now have even less to lose, from going kama-crazy and murdering us" would also be solved, as the poors would embrace the NAP. Alternately, the cops will be unleashed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Yes, those poor 16 to 21 year old young adults will suddenly want to work when they can make less, economics told me so. Less that they'll want to and more that they'll have to work to help their families eat. Sorry Johnny, but you're going to have to drop out of McDonalds and get a job unloading stock at Wal*Mart for $2.15/hr so that we have enough money to feed your younger brother and sister as well as keep the heat on. Edit: ^^^^Fucker!^^^^
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Less that they'll want to and more that they'll have to work to help their families eat. Sorry Johnny, but you're going to have to drop out of McDonalds and get a job unloading stock at Wal*Mart for $2.15/hr so that we have enough money to feed your younger brother and sister as well as keep the heat on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Less that they'll want to and more that they'll have to work to help their families eat. Sorry Johnny, but you're going to have to drop out of McDonalds and get a job unloading stock at Wal*Mart for $2.15/hr so that we have enough money to feed your younger brother and sister as well as keep the heat on. But Johnny can take the skills he learns unloading stock to his next job, loading stock, for $2.25 an hour. Then, in a few years, if he hasn't been hurt at work and left on skid row by his supervisor, Johnny can take his talents inside and stock the shelves for $2.60 an hour. The next few decades are pretty tough on ol' Johnny. He lost a few teeth in a freak accident stocking paint cans and couldn't afford the implants, so he is afraid to interview outside the company. Luckily enough, back spasms and knee ligament injuries force him into early retirement at age 45. His ending wage was $6.45 an hour. That's a 300% increase over his career! His retirement account has $1,230.54 in it, which is an increase of literally infinity from where it started. How ashamed do you feel that your minimum wage would have prevented this from happening?  checkmate, Liberals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:But Johnny can take the skills he learns unloading stock to his next job, loading stock, for $2.25 an hour. Then, in a few years, if he hasn't been hurt at work and left on skid row by his supervisor, Johnny can take his talents inside and stock the shelves for $2.60 an hour. The next few decades are pretty tough on ol' Johnny. He lost a few teeth in a freak accident stocking paint cans and couldn't afford the implants, so he is afraid to interview outside the company. Luckily enough, back spasms and knee ligament injuries force him into early retirement at age 45. His ending wage was $6.45 an hour. That's a 300% increase over his career! His retirement account has $1,230.54 in it, which is an increase of literally infinity from where it started. How ashamed do you feel that your minimum wage would have prevented this from happening? "I think you'll find that the action axiom states that this does not matter, and may in fact not exist."
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Has Jrod ever acknowledged the fact that minimum wage work experience is basically worthless? I know he gets hammered with that fact every time it comes up. I guess it's not surprising he would ignore the one fact that destroys the lynchpin of his entire argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Has Jrod ever acknowledged the fact that minimum wage work experience is basically worthless? I know he gets hammered with that fact every time it comes up. I guess it's not surprising he would ignore the one fact that destroys the lynchpin of his entire argument. Too consumed with the melon he was romancing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
I don't know why you guys bother we've gone over every single point he's made multiple times before and he never, ever acknowledges facts that contradict his suppositions
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
That's the fascinating part to me. He posts this poo poo again and again, and he doesn't change it. Not even so much as quietly removing an argument we pounced on before. It's just the same exact goddamned thing, and it's baffling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:That's the fascinating part to me. He posts this poo poo again and again, and he doesn't change it. Not even so much as quietly removing an argument we pounced on before. It's just the same exact goddamned thing, and it's baffling. This is why I still believe that  ~*¥*jRoDe HaS a MenTal iLLneSs*¥*~
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:This is why I still believe that Not since he had the mercury removed
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:That's the fascinating part to me. He posts this poo poo again and again, and he doesn't change it. Not even so much as quietly removing an argument we pounced on before. It's just the same exact goddamned thing, and it's baffling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It's because he's a (lovely) missionary intending to convert us to his religion. Like most religions it is ultimately a bunch of unquestionable maxims which must be taken on faith without - or indeed, in resistance to - evidence, this religion is just more about an ineluctable cosmic force of fundamental goodness. And at least my religion has intelligent scholars willing to address its first principles and examine then. Libertarians think if they just believe hard enough in the invisible hand of the market that it will cure all social ills. BaurusJA fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
BaurusJA posted:And at least ny religion has intelligent scholars willing ti addres its first principles and examine then. Libertarians think if they just believe hard enough in the invisible hand of the market that it will cure all social ills. Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Too consumed with the melon he was romancing. Now I see your av as him initiating congress with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos. At least it acknowledges the "gently caress you" part of FYGM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:This is an amazing question and probably the most important. His ideal business is selling bootlegged Hong Kong DVDs. Case closed. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Asked and answered, statist. Yeah, uh, gently caress that Rothbard guy. Every single person is vulnerable to becoming a bum on the street should they run into a financial calamity like having their business (and the loans it depended upon) become bankrupt or, say, a major medical emergency like cancer or a heart attack. Our (lack of a) safety net is the only thing separating paycheck-to-paycheck entrepreneurs from living on the streets, whether they are a Captain of Industry-et-Master of the Universe or Joe the Plumber, no matter how much their inflated ego might tell them otherwise. Hell, even Libertarian poster child Ayn Rand ended up on food stamps and relying on public assistance at the end of her life due to costs arising out of her lung cancer condition. Economic status is a financial state, not a caste.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:I don't know why you guys bother we've gone over every single point he's made multiple times before and he never, ever acknowledges facts that contradict his suppositions I'm just waiting for the part where he tries the zinger about "if civil rights are so great, why don't you support a law forcing you to invite black people over to your house?" just so I can quote that post, and the post asking where Libertarians support apartheid both within the same thread. Like, I could go back and find that post here: Jrod posted:By the same argument that you are using against Hoppe, I could claim that YOU are a racist because you presumably endorse the right of individuals to discriminate on who can enter their home based on race. Why don't we pass a law instituting a racial quota for my private dinner party I am having at my home? But this is a dusty 2014 post. I want to see him rephrase it slightly for 2016.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Lock jrod in an empty city and observe what property rights he respects.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Lock jrod in an empty city and observe what property rights he respects. Land and property that is not in use by white people can be reclaimed by mixing your labor with it. Read your Locke, statist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 01:16
|
|