Sunday, November 25, 2012

How Mad Is Mad Max Keiser?: A Test

In response to Chris Rossini's post on Max Keiser's interventionist, economic clueless, central planning call for minimum wage laws to be indexed to Federal Reserve money manipulations---and thus result in keeping those that can be only employed at a low wage unemployed, Keiser has responded with a post that appears he may not be waiting for certain drugs to be legalized before using them. He attacks EPJ using arguments that simply are not in line with reality.

Keiser writes:
You can tell the validity of an idea (in this case, my idea) by the urgency and vehemence those who stand to get screwed by it – blog about it along with an army of trolls and white trash types who believe in ‘legitimate rape.’
For the record, EPJ will not "get screwed" directly by an increase in minimum wage laws. We have no minimum wage employees.  We will, however, "get screwed" like everyone else will by not having the services available to us that could be supplied by those that can only be hired profitably, by firms, below the central planning, interventionist, minimum wage.

As for linking EPJ with political candidates who shout "legitimate rape," this is totally picked out of the air and has nothing to do with EPJ. EPJ has been on a relentless attack against Rand Paul, for example, for his linking up with such types.

Keiser continues:
Implied in this post is that EPJ ‘cares’ about a balanced economy.
How Keiser gets this view is difficult to also understand. EPJ is not for a "balanced economy," whatever that means, EPJ is about free markets in everything, including drugs and  wages.

Bottom line: Not all people are productive enough to earn a centrally planned high minimum wage. But, just as a test to see how mad you really are, Max, what minimum wage do you think this guy should be getting?


  1. This little shithead sure loves to make stuff up out of thin air. Is he THAT desperate for ratings? Is he a leftist moron who appeals to emotions? Or is he just a complete idiot?

  2. "Economic Policy Journal was quick off the mark regarding a tweet by me to try and discredit an idea before wage earners get the bright idea of tying Fed policy to pay. Not too far back in London, during a police march for better pay, I suggested tying wages to money supply."

    Keiser doesn't even reply to what Rossini is criticizing him for. Rossini is criticizing a tweet of his that advocates tying minimum wage laws to increases in the money supply, not voluntary wage agreements between workers and hirers.

  3. Hopefully he will drive some attention to your site. Once people get a taste of real economic freedom, they won't go back.

  4. Part of me wishes the twits of the world like the anonymous commenter on the other thread would get what they want with a $20+/hr minimum wage (but I can't really wish that level of devastation on innocent people). Of course, most of the ignorant people who were suddenly jobless would be rioting for more government intervention instead of placing the blame where it truly lies.

    Ultimately, that's the reason the politicians don't make the minimum wage "livable" (by progressive standards). They understand the economics of the situation and know the people would riot. And, while they'd be rioting for more progressivism, they would achieve that by throwing the current bunch of progressives out and going with a new -- even more "progressive" (socialist/fascist) -- bunch. Those in power would never want to see that.

  5. It's true. All of us on some government subsidy, and that can no longer find meaningful employment suited to our diminished abilities, should just stop taking the subsidy and die.

    Hail Darwin! Lord and Savior!

    1. There's an idea!
      Sorry, couldn't resist.
      Fer Chissakes! I was only kidding!!

  6. I know you won't post this, but like the Republicans who thought that telling the 47% that were on some form of subsidy, that they were all some sort of deadbeat, and this did nothing to gain them votes, why then would you think anyone will cheer your philosophy when everyone eventually gets ill, loses a job, whatever, and are faced with the fact that they're not extraordinary. Or that they once were capable, but aren't so much now. In a few short years, except for marketing, management, government jobs and medicine, most jobs will be automated. You really provide no hope for anyone who can see where the world is going, and is not a self promoting bullshitter, or some kind of predator. Most ordinary, average ability people will be stranded out in the cold, their meager talents unneeded in the new economy, and you will applaud this...rigidly holding Nazi-like to free market principles while the little people die.

    1. I love this kind of reasoning: bad things happen, therefore there must be violence and extortion to make us feel happy again and anyone who doesn't agree is cruel and stupid. So there!

    2. You are completely stupid if you think the free market leads to the death of "little people". Please go study the subject. next....

    3. @Anonymous

      No one is extorting anything from you. Most of us just want the Social Security money that we paid into the system, back. The riots will start when that final theft by the elites takes place, which it will. Libertarians will just say we had no right to that program in the first place.

      Why are you now playing the victim, you aren't hurting yet?

      Now someday you will be, as most jobs will be handed over to computers, assembly line robots, avatars, bots, whatever. Then you will find out that the Darwinian race you felt yourself the master of, will get the best of you, humans can not evolve as fast as machines can. Like the movie of the same name, you will join the 'hunger games' at what ever level it will be at, at that time when you find yourself in it..

      As the bottom of the pyramid gets thrown to the piranha's, the middle of the pyramid becomes the new bottom. Surprise!

      Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

      The ultimate end is genocide. Capitalism, Communism, all of the isms, are just how the triage is applied.

    4. @Mike

      Quote: You are completely stupid if you think the free market leads to the death of "little people"

      Talk to the Chinese. They are routinely worked to death, industrially poisoned, etc. If their form of capitalism is still too communistic for you, look at America's industrial revolution. I grew up in Pittsburgh, over 50 years ago. Our graveyards were full of people sacrificed for profit in 'free markets'. Capitalism 'maybe' kills fewer of it's own people than Communism, that's possible. But capitalism seems to have more of a love for external wars, that in the 20th century killed 10's of millions, so the overall death count of the two systems might be a wash. Industry alone, driven by the lowest cost production always has and always will, kills people with fairly large numbers.

      The health of your labourers is a fairly easy thing to compromise, and hard sometime for the victims to prove.

      Thus, it's often done.

    5. I wish that you could post a coherent arguement.

      In a true capitalist society you would be far better off, but you are obviously just a victim of government schooling. I'm sure that 99.9% of the people that read this site daily would gladly give you a lump sum of what you paid in to SS just to shut you up. You would probably use it to buy a new TV and shoes, and then bitch because you don't get anymore money.

    6. "rigidly holding Nazi-like to free market principles"

      Godwin's law strikes again.

      The term Nazi, from the German Nationalsozialismus, means National Socialist, which is about as far from the free market as you can get.

    7. People have been saying automation would put everyone out of work for about 200 years. Guess what, all that has happened is the increased quality of living for everyone including the poor.

    8. @Dale

      Shut me up? My goodness.

      Let see...In a true capitalist society...Could you give a historical example? And if you know one, can you say if it still exists, and if it doesn't, can you explain what killed it?

      Sorry to say, but having worked for Oil Companies for 25 years, I do have shoes and a TV. I don't watch much TV though. However with Inflation caused by Banker criminals using the 'free market' slogan,
      I will need my SS to make up for lost buying power from these financial people.

      Now understand, I do know that many White Collar executive criminals really don't want free markets, don't want competition at all, they want no rules, i.e. anything goes, including criminality.

      I know that's not what is meant by free markets, and the term is abused. I accept that.

      However, realistically speaking, for any given technology base, after the initial innovator, there is a copycat period where many companies at a similar level of development come into being and DO compete. The firms are of limited size at that point, though growing, but there is a place at the table for everyone.

      Maybe call that Phase 1.

      Then some of the companies or, only one or two, leap ahead either in technology or in marketing, and start to engulf the smaller competitors.

      Maybe call that Phase 2.

      Finally 1, 2, or 3 competitors are left, the rest are gone. The remaining players are VERY large, have huge political influence, are too big to fail, and don't give their customers much of a deal anymore, with competition as an idea waning or gone.

      It's certainly gone if the remaining players form a cartel (often), or have enough influence to gut any anti-trust efforts made against them (also often.)

      Call this phase 3.

      Finally the mature phase (4), management starts to think about selling the company off in chunks, and gets huge bonuses for canabalizing much of it. This may be preceded by an outsourcing phase, before management gets bored with running a business altogether. After prolonged boredom comes dismemberment and great rewards for the landed gentry that sell off the business..

      The 'True Capitalism' phase (Phases 1 & 2) is like young love, it's fun while it lasts, but you can't keep it.

      Real capitalism is ALL of the stages, and must be judged in all of it's phases, not just it's youth, much as life itself.

      So striving for continuous 'True Capitalism' is as illusory as seeking Eternal Youth.

    9. Why do you think you have the right to my money just because you fell for a government Ponzi scheme. You put me in debt before I was even born. Thanks asshole.

    10. @Anonymous

      Nazi also means 'rigid' to many people. It's not just a politically defined term. It sometimes just means 'rules are more important than people'.

    11. @mlytle Understood that you want the social security money back that you paid in. Unfortunately the politicians that you elected stole it all. Instead of holding them accountable the only solution proposed by the 47% is to use the government to steal money from people more successful than they. That absolutely occurs via extortion. You should be demanding that every current and former member of congress and their families be stripped of every last asset to attempt to pay as much as possible to those that social security was stolen from.

      Your assertion that increasing automation and efficiencies will lead to the death of the worker are a product of either incomplete or juvenile thinking. ENORMOUS automation came in the form of the personal computer and the internet. It created vast new industries that now employ millions of people. All such technological advances create both new markets and new opportunities for employment, either implementing the new technology, or using it to make newer and better products.

      I work with lots of chinese people, not one has ever known of a single person worked to death. I think you are making an unsupported claim here. And please support your claim about graveyards full of people capitalism killed in Pittsburgh or retract it. The industry in Pittsburgh lifted tens of thousands of people out of poverty. People who would otherwise likely not have had the opportunities to improve the standard of living of them or their families.

      I really think that you are just another progressive that spits out prog talking points without having actually thought about them or done an iota of research into what you are speaking of.

    12. @Anonymous

      Chinese working Conditions

      - 14,702 safety incidents in the industrial enterprises, trade enterprises and mines. Death toll: 16,497.

      - 3,639 safety incidents in coal mines. Death toll: 6,027.

      - 2,582 safety incidents in the construction sector. Death toll: 2,789.

      - 252,701 flooding incidents. Death toll: 2,557.

      - Estimated direct economic loss in relation to work injuries and occupational diseases: RMB10 billion. Indirect economic loss: RMB20 billion.

    13. @Anonymous

      Factory conditions were also poor and, in some cases, deplorable. Lack of effective government regulation led to unsafe and unhealthy work sites. In the late nineteenth century more industrial accidents occurred in the United States than in any other industrial country. Rarely did an employer offer payment if a worker was hurt or killed on the job. As industries consolidated at the turn of the century factories grew larger and more dangerous. By 1900 industrial accidents killed thirty-five thousand workers each year and maimed five hundred thousand others, and the numbers continued to rise. The general public became concerned with industrial accidents only when scores of workers were killed in a single widely reported incident, such as the many coal-mine explosions or the tragic Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire in 1911. In one year alone 195 workers in steel and iron mills were killed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

      Personal note: My mother's cousin died of Silicosis in the brick yards in his early 30's. This was in the 1940's. The hill my suburb was built on, has subsidence from old coal mines. In the early 20th century as children were consigned to the mines and factories, turbuculosis was rampant as well as black lung. My Grandfather had black lung, Pneumonia killed him.

    14. Some other articles containing reference to workingconditions in Pittsburgh, early 20th century:

      Fatalities in West Virginia Coal Mines 1883-1925

      During the 1880s, for example, accidental deaths at Carnegie's immensely profitable Pittsburgh steel mills accounted for 20 percent of all male deaths in the city.

      "From 1902 to 1907 The Factory Inspector, unofficial journal of the Inter­national Association of Factory Inspectors, regularly published accounts gathered by state labor bureaus of industrial accidents. The steel industry produced some of the most violent accidents that this journal reported. At a steel mill in Butler, Pennsylvania, a heavy pot of hot metal spilled molten steel onto wet sand, causing a huge explosion which destroyed part of the plant. Streams of hot metal poured down on the workmen, engulfing and literally cooking some of them. Four men died and 30 more were injured. The explosion shook buildings in the town and caused panic among the populace. Thousands turned out to watch the huge fire that ensued.114 Two employees at a steel plant in Youngstown, Ohio were sent to clean out the dust underneath the blast furnaces. Suddenly there was a slippage of tons of molten fuel and ore inside the furnace, causing large amounts of very hot dust to fall on them. One of the men was completely buried in it and died in great agony. The other escaped with severe burns.115

      Less spectacular but more frequent were the individual tragedies reported in The Factory Inspector resulting from unprotected machinery in a variety of industries. A machinist got his arm caught in a rapidly moving belt. It was jerked from its socket, and he fell 50 feet to the floor. His fellow workers, aghast at the man's shrieks, ran in panic from the shop. A young boy working in a coffin plant was decapitated and had both arms and both legs torn off when he was caught on shafting rotating at 300 revolutions per minute. A worker in a brick‑making factory was caught in a belt and had most of his skin torn off. A sawmill worker fell onto a large, unguarded circular saw and was split in two. When a worker got caught in the large flywheel of the main steam power plant of a navy yard, his arms and legs were torn off and the lifeless trunk was hurled against a wall 50 feet away.116 Perhaps the most horrifying accident reported in the journal was described as follows:

      “In plain sight of a hundred fellow‑workmen, Martin Stoffel was cut into small pieces at the Philadelphia Caramel Works ... He was dragged into the machinery and his head severed... A second later both legs were cut off. Then one arm after the other fell into the lesser wheels below, both being cut into many parts. Before the machinery could be stopped, Stoffel had been literally chopped to pieces.”117

      Dramatically underscoring the frequency of industrial accidents, The Factory Inspector once reported on "the peculiar coincidence of two men of the same name meeting their doom in the same manner at the same hour" in different cities. John Minick of Escanaba, Michigan, and a namesake in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, both millwrights, were killed when their clothing became entangled in rotating shafting. No one witnessed either accident, but the bodies were found later.118"

    15. And so these accidents are enough for you to support wars that kill millions overseas? Or support a syndicate of "Medical Experts" that kill millions with bad advice?

      I can see your point, but the fact that you cannot see the forest for the trees makes me doubt you. Utopia is NOT an option, thus a free society, governed by common, sensible, natural law is the only way to mitigate these horrors.

      I like you, M. You're much smarter than the average contrarian. I hope you will continue to keep us on our toes!

    16. M-

      As you point out above, all of these "phases" come about for one reason- TOTAL CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT IN LAWMAKING! None of these large companies (Wal Mart, Bank of Amerika, BlackRock, Boeing, GE, GM, etc.) could exist without the power of a large and virtually omnipotent FEDERAL GOVERNMENT supporting them and writing laws that benefit them and disadvantage the rest of us.

    17. "Because we lack enlightened capitalism..."

      Ahh, and the true colors come out. You want "Enlightened Capitalism" AKA fascism with a pretty face. The comparisons to Nazi Germany and Hitler were appropriate!

      Ms. mlytle

      Before any of us waste any more time on your tired bullshit, would you weigh in on these topics-

      1- Ending any and all government entanglements overseas, both financial and military.

      2- Ending all domestic spying and adopt a purely open policy of treating all citizens as laid out by the constitution.

      3- Ending the Federal Reserve and returning all money to the free market. Not a "Gold Standard" necessarily, just a freedom to choose money.

      4- Affirm that freedom of contract between consenting individuals is always lawful, providing they do not harm anyone else.

      Unless you do, you are nothing more than a shill for TPTB and I will know to ignore your posts in the future.

      I've seen your bullshit on MMT and Ellen Brown "State Banking" sites before, and you need to take it elsewhere. We've proven that you and your kind are just "socialists with a softer glove" and need to be smacked down and your evil insides exposed. People like you are sick.

      We are on a crazy free diet, and don't need any from you.

      Thanks, See You Next Tuesday (if you get my drift)

    18. re:

      On the same page it says that forming worker's unions is illegal in China. That sure is some great free market capitalism they've got over there.

    19. "Nazi also means 'rigid' to many people. It's not just a politically defined term. It sometimes just means 'rules are more important than people'."

      "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
      "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
      "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

    20. @mlytle Now please post the average increase in income and wealth in and around pittsburgh from say 1800-1950 so that we can contrast it with your anecdotes. Do you actually believe that the accidents you are listing were a net negative for Pittsburgh and the surrounding region? They were terrible, and people were maimed and died, but many more people were helped than hurt by that industry. Also can you please list the per capita rate of accidents as time progressed from 1890-1930? If you take the time to do so you will realize that conditions were improving and accidents becoming more scarce well before the thugs known as labor unions were given special protections under the law.

  7. "You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for
    anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the
    right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit
    him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate
    services that he is capable of rendering."
    -Henry Hazlitt

    More importantly min wages laws violate private property rights.

  8. What Keiser doesn't understand, or refuses to understand, is that what he is advocating for actually helps the big business he supposedly holds so much contempt for.

    A few years ago, Walmart was on board with a national hike in the minimum wage. They were praised by leftist groups for finally coming around to recognizing the plight of workers everywhere. Of course, anyone with an elementary view of economics and an even less mature view of humanity would realize that a minimum wage hike would actually benefit a company like Walmart that is in a better position to absorb the cost as other small time competitors are run out of business. There was nothing compassionate about Walmart's decision, it was simply seeking to use the state apparatus to its advantage.

    For all of his populist showboating, Keiser appears more clueless by the day.

    1. Well, let's see...If the minimum wage was raised, maybe the workers would have more money to spend. which means they could buy more goods and services from all business concerns, even the small ones.

      My understanding this was the position of Henry Ford:

      "Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($120 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[21] A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement "shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression."[22] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[23][24] Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts. Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[25] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[26] (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later it was changed to a day off.)"

      That was pretty enlightened. Don't see much of that nowadays...

      The attitude towards labor now is "slash and burn" or mechanize and outsource.

    2. The Ford success story is the result of free market capitalism not government-imposed mandates. If you want to recreate the atmosphere that allowed this to happen, get the government out of peoples' lives. This was at a time when personal income tax was extremely low with the top rate at 7% and everything from 0 to $453,000 adjusted for inflation was taxed at a 1% marginal rate (corporate taxes were also extremely low, which allowed Ford to pay such wages), there were very few government regulations, no social security, etc. Also this was a result of automation, something you seem very opposed to but has increased the quality of life for everyone.

    3. Come on Mlytle, you can't be serious. Ford made a business decision, he was getting hamstrung by rapid employee turnover, so he paid them enough that they would stay. He was also *extremely* demanding and fired anyone who wasn't working hard. It had nothing to do with this ridiculous myth of paying people enough to buy the products they make. If that were the standard to subscribe to people making disposable consumer products would pay their employees nothing, and nobody would make luxury goods anymore since labor costs would be unaffordable.

      You also destroy your entire argument in support of a minimum wage by bringing up this situation. Ford had a labor problem, he was *demanding* good labor, but his *supply* was subpar, so he decided to raise the wage to rectify the situation. No government intervention necessary. Good employees were paid very well for their work, and the lazy slobs were shown the door. Also, as a point to note, ANYONE that ever acted like the entitlement slobs in unions today would have been out in less than a day in a Ford factory.

      You *really* need to do some research before attempting to make arguments based on pieces of history you have little to no actual knowledge of.

    4. Just found this:

      Skills Don’t Pay the Bills

      "Nearly six million factory jobs, almost a third of the entire manufacturing industry, have disappeared since 2000. And while many of these jobs were lost to competition with low-wage countries, even more vanished because of computer-driven machinery that can do the work of 10, or in some cases, 100 workers. Those jobs are not coming back, but many believe that the industry’s future (and, to some extent, the future of the American economy) lies in training a new generation for highly skilled manufacturing jobs — the ones that require people who know how to run the computer that runs the machine. "

      "Throughout the campaign, President Obama lamented the so-called skills gap and referenced a study claiming that nearly 80 percent of manufacturers have jobs they can’t fill. Mitt Romney made similar claims. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that there are roughly 600,000 jobs available for whoever has the right set of advanced skills."

      "The secret behind this skills gap is that it’s not a skills gap at all. I spoke to several other factory managers who also confessed that they had a hard time recruiting in-demand workers for $10-an-hour jobs. “It’s hard not to break out laughing,” says Mark Price, a labor economist at the Keystone Research Center, referring to manufacturers complaining about the shortage of skilled workers. “If there’s a skill shortage, there has to be rises in wages,” he says. “It’s basic economics.” After all, according to supply and demand, a shortage of workers with valuable skills should push wages up. Yet according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of skilled jobs has fallen and so have their wages."

      "“Trying to hire high-skilled workers at rock-bottom rates,” the Boston Group study asserted, “is not a skills gap.” The study’s conclusion, however, was scarier. Many skilled workers have simply chosen to apply their skills elsewhere rather than work for less, and few young people choose to invest in training for jobs that pay fast-food wages. As a result, the United States may soon have a hard time competing in the global economy. The average age of a highly skilled factory worker in the U.S. is now 56. “That’s average,” says Hal Sirkin, the lead author of the study. “That means there’s a lot who are in their 60s. They’re going to retire soon.” And there are not enough trainees in the pipeline, he said, to replace them."

    5. @Anonymous

      Because we lack enlightened capitalism, a.k.a. Henry Ford (and others) the Government gets called in. I do see the problems with Government intervention, but since the government arranged tax rates favorable to outsourcing, then I think reasonably since they partially caused the problem, they should partially address it.

      Google Search for "Tax Breaks for Outsourcing"

      131,000 hits.

    6. There was nothing "enlightened" about what Ford did. He paid people more to get higher quality labor. Everyone does this. Law firms do this. Universities do this. Pharma companies do this. Have you ever been out in the labor market? You act as if salaries do not rise to hire good people. Look at google. The rising salaries may not be falling upon the segment of the population that you would like, but those are brakes. The market does not value unskilled labor as it once did. Get knowledge, get skills, or be poor.

    7. mlytle ..

      First - I'm always fascinated by contrarian posters that park on a board that is almost diametrically opposed to their position? And the doggedly hang in there, firing volleys and taking shots from the 'inner circle' lol

      Amazing. I don't know what it is about you that motivates you to do this. Do you get a charge out of the debate? Or do you just have a lot of time on your hands lol? Either way, in all honesty: rock on girl, its worthy of oddly akin to respect.

      You make a lot of points. Points from a certain perspective that is quite common. The perspective in question can be very convincing at first glance, So I don't necessarily blame you for holding them.

      They *do* make sense .. until you look a little bit deeper.

      I will say - the one thing that leaps out at me about almost all of your posts? Very strikingly actually.

      Is that every single one of them is decisively answered by a book that you can read in only a couple of hours:

      Henry Hazlitt 'Economics in One Lesson'

      Google / Bing it. Download the PDF. Kick back and read it.

      THEN come back here and try and refute it.

      I have no doubt people here will respect you a lot more for even trying.

  9. "As for linking EPJ with political candidates who shout "legitimate rape," this is totally picked out of the air and has nothing to do with EPJ. EPJ has been on a relentless attack against Rand Paul, for example, for his linking up with such types."

    Think there's no such thing as an illegitimate claim of rape? Google False Rape Society and have your illusions destroyed.

  10. No all of us should realize that inflation and price controls don't work. The reason the cost of living is so high is because of inflation and price controls. We need gov't out of the mix. Liberal and progressive blow hards cry for minimum wage laws, why because our cost of living continues to rise. They fail to understand that we are trapped in a gov't pandora's box where prices keep rising, gov't imposes controls on wages and hours, pricing people out of the market. Don't people who get jobs acquire skills? So that said, they could work their way up in a company or move to another that wanted their service. It is absurd to say we should all die, we need freedom to let people who have negligible skills get jobs so they can acquire them. Wining about letting people die is irrelevant, understanding productivity, and cost effectiveness is the key. It's not heartless to pay someone who has little to offer a dollar or two an hour it's heartless to keep them unemployed because you demand a basic wage. Inflation and gov't are what keep people who are unskilled, unemployed, there's little debate here except from people who would have you believe that a wage is a right, and you can refer to any decent libertarian writer as to why nothing is a right except you'r life.

  11. I only believe in legitimate rape in cases where the victim is Max Keiser.

  12. I do not know what the guy in the picture should be making(obviously central planner extraordinaire Keiser does, maybe he should change his name to Kaiser), but I do know that whatever he is worth it is certainly more than that commie Keiser.

  13. He'll get back to you in 6 months... Ask Tom Woods.

  14. "Wining about letting people die is irrelevant"

    Not a denial of this as a reality, just a statement that it doesn't matter.

    This says volumes.

    1. @mlytle You blew them up. Your arguments are great. Too bad for the other commentors are stuck in the paradigm. I would like to see a perfect free market system like they are trying to defend. Too bad there isn't any, just government endorsed monopolies.

      As for Max, is very entertaining in his economic analysis and thoughts. He makes it so it is informative and enjoyable without being depressed. You have to take some of Max's thoughts tongue in cheek. Which the ones you are addressing don't understand.

    2. We all saw your trolling above. You use open ridicule and loaded commentary to garner responses that make you feel poignant and intelligent. In reality you are just another statist leech. You want what you paid into SS, and you don't care who they steal it from. You're unwilling to understand the situation fully, because you "feel" entitled and demand that you are paid what you think you are "owed".

      I hate to break it to you reality doesn't measure value or worth for what you think you are "owed". It measures you by what you are worth to the rest of society and whether they feel you are worth being paid. In the end you will get what you are worth, which is likely nothing as the people that can earn and produce will move on and cut you off from the government teat by leaving the government's sphere of influence.

      You reap what you sow.

    3. You are an annoying troll, this is the truth of the matter. Worse yet, you think we owe you something.

    4. @David

      "You want what you paid into SS, and you don't care who they steal it from"

      All social contracts should be honoured. If you younger ones have put money into the system, it should be returned to you. period.

      As for money, the Federal reserve handed out 29 trillion to the banks in 2008. Not 800 billion as implied. It was far more than 'Tarp'.

      Now, probably half that amount would pay off all the student debt, credit card debt, all mortgages. The other half could redo the entire American powergrid and a few other big projects.

      The ones who have made the young poor, are the bankers and industrialists. The Globalists, if you will. Not old people.

      But ultimately, you're in the same scam. If you don't demand your FICA taxes back, which is what funds social security, then in 30 years, you will trade places with me...and someone young will be bitching at you.

  15. An easy test that someone doesn't know the first thing about economics is finding out if they support minimum wage laws. If they do, they are clueless and they almost certainly buy into a lot of the propaganda of the MSM and political establishment (fits Max Keiser). All minimum wage laws do is prevent people with low skills and/or little job experience from being employed. It is called entry level employment. Very few people who take these sort of jobs intend to stay there. The idea is you learn marketable skills and gain job experience, so in time the wage you can command in the marketplace goes up. Minimum wage laws mucks up this whole system and forces unskilled and younger workers who lack job experience in the ranks of the unemployed and onto the government dole.

    1. "All minimum wage laws do is prevent people with low skills and/or little job experience from being employed. It is called entry level employment."

      Ah, the bias of the youth culture. When the bankers implode the economy, which they can do quickly or slowly, depending on their mood, do you really believe it will be only people who have the years ahead to spend, that can wait for their wages to go up?

      Think out of the box, do you really think all the people in Greece who are currently trying to survive on minimum wage are young? As the minimum wage is being reduced every few months, is employment going up?


    2. ofcourse the greek protesters are not young.they are the zombies.those who want to leech money from the productive few.and bankers? LOL. you came to the wrong site if you thought bankers are in favor here.wall st and govt are in bed because it benefits them has nothing to do with the free market.btw,communism rule number 3: state control over money.we already got it

    3. The fact is despite Greece's high unemployment and other economic problems, it has, like the rest of Europe, highly inflexible labor markets and low rates of productivity relative to the rest of Europe. Sorry to say when labor is uncompetitive and labor markets are unable to properly adjust to reflect this reality because of minimum wage laws or other government regulations the result is high unemployment such as you have in Greece. If wage rates were allowed to fall to their free market price, the labor markets would readily clear and unemployment would disappear. A few people might have to work a little harder or more hours to maintain the same living standard, but it would be overall a far better situation than Greece has now.

    4. Greek labor markets have been uncompetitive, that's true. Whether that's still true is unknown, because Greece, like post WWI Germany in the 1920's, is being made to pay extra because they are not being allowed to restructure their debts. Every bailout, given to them is a poison pill, adding more debt. The Greek ruling class is sabotaging the Greeks future by not taking a leadership position to get them out of the Euro and revive the drachma. This would cause additional pain in the short run, perhaps a lot, but like Iceland, they would recover, and fairly quickly. This would effectively toss the bankers out.

      It's always easy to blame 'the people' for their troubles, and some of it is their fault, but the bankers use every crisis as an opportunity to steal more, so it's unknown how much of the current economic problems there are, by now, banker caused. Certainly a fair portion is.

      By the way, like Germany in the 1920's Fascism is rising in Greece (Golden Dawn). Same mistreatment by bankers, similar outcome is appearing.

  16. Max Keiser is a pro-tyranny sensationalist talking head of the highest order. He favors fiat money, centalized control, subsidies, and an economic regime similar in force and coercion to U.S. military hegemony. Socialist/fascist types are a confused, foolish bunch. I don't follow Keiser or his vapid fans in any manner, but this has got to be just as stupid a fight to pick as going up against (actual) scholar/historian Tom Woods.

    It's amazing that someone like Keiser can have such a loud (and obnoxious) voice in economic matters, yet he clearly hasn't bothered to devote an afternoon to read "Economics In One Lesson"....

  17. @Anonymous

    Whatever Max Keisers strengths and weaknesses, being a fiat fan is not one of them. His personal movement is called "Bankrupt J.P. Morgan, buy Silver.

    centralized control(?) Let's see, he doesn't like Obama (Socialist) or Romney (Fascist).

    What sort of statist is he?

    I don't disagree that there is an argument of some vitriol between the two men, but you should only represent the disagreement, accurately, and not misrepresent the other positions of either man.

    1. One cannot be in favor of hard/honest money AND support price controls and regulatory regimes. Keiser's silver shtick was just his way of inserting himself into the zerohedge/free-market crowd to get viewers to his awful show. He's a fan of debunked Greenbacker Ellen Brown and shit-talks economists/investors/historians whose analysis and knowledge fly far over his head. He's a television clown, perhaps not as stupid as most tv bobble heads, but nothing more.

  18. Mlytle is absolutely correct. Raise the minimum wage to somewhere between $15 and $20 per hour and you will see an automatic increase in economic statistics as well as good living conditions for all workers. All you free market preachers are totally wrong and are being extremely misled. Plus, I would venture to guess that most in this mindset live and/or have always lived a privileged lifestyle. Free markets have had there shot at creating utopia. Now it's obviously time to give up that obsurd notion. Free your minds libertarians, plato's cave has you chained tightly to the wall.

    1. So, trading one kind of totalitarianism for another is your solution? Slavery is slavery, no matter who holds the chains. People like you are sick. Can you not see the blatant flaws in your argument?

    2. It stands to reason that a raise in the minimum wage will indeed create a rise in living conditions for all first. Eventually, market prices on living expenses (food, fuel, rent, etc.) will rise as a result of the wage increase as these "workers" spend their money nullifying any perceived benefit increase of the "good living conditions". The market will once again reach equilibrium and another raise in the minimum wage will be required to maintain the "good living conditions" of which you speak.

      As long as we use some sort of medium of exchange as a form of value is traded for resources, the free market will always exist. When you regulate, distort and manipulate it, it will take on other forms (i.e.-black markets, asset bubbles, etc.) At the end of the day, people require resources and will seek them out at the best possible value. The failed economic experiment called Keynesian economics and central planning/banking has persisted long enough and needs to be addressed as the fallacy for which it is.

      On the subject of Keiser, it boggles my mind why he continues infighting with people on the same side as he. He was picking a fight with Tom Woods just a short while ago for unknown reasons.

    3. "Free markets have had there shot at creating utopia."

      Mind letting us know when/where we've had them so I can go there or at least research how it all went down?

      Btw, as far as I know there is no one claiming "free markets" would provide some sort of utopia. They provide maximum freedom and the best overall standard of living for the most amount of people.

      There will always be "losers" in life, most of which deserve to be and few that might not..."utopia" is the notion that some central authority can fix all that.

    4. Yes, there will always be losers,that can't be avoided. But the scale of losers will soon be unprecedented. Because it's become fashionable to be uber-darwinian. The elites set this paradyme some time ago.

      The truth is, we don't have a free market. I think free-market are theorecticaly better, but with cartels, collusion, bought off politicians, totally manipulated markets, you will never see the free market experiment in progress. it ain't there.

  19. Talk about trolling. It's a tweet that if the currency, real wages, savings et al are going to be devalued by QE they should raise the minimum wage accordingly. The point was more, clearly, on the veils of QE and the sponging classes benefitting from the perverse form of Socialism supported by both major US and UK parties (literally a cigarette paper apart in actual delivery of policy).

    It's a throwaway with the germ of an idea/point said to be entertaining, provocative and make a point. To counter that all I read here is some desperate troll trolling for attention not entertainment to make a point. Not even getting the point Keiser was making. Pitiable stuff.

    You win I responded.

    Well done.

  20. I don't understand why so many are down on Keiser, if we simply adopt his ideas we will reach a harmonious society with wealth for everyone. He really knows how the whole economy should work.

    We are just a few more laws/rules away from creating equality and justice. What's wrong with you people?

    1. I think if the laws already on the books were enforced, mostly eliminating the criminals in government and business, then your free market ideas might work, although as I've said, it has to do with a long business cycle, and you only get it for a short time, and then it decays.

    2. I think economics is a form of 'religion'. I think each form has it's true believers, and cheerleaders, and wars are periodically fought over them. I think many of them work somewhat for a time, but human nature wrecks all the models, rendering all of them invalid. But new generations emerge, people don't read history, they try something old thinking it's really new, never been done before, and it all starts over again.

    3. Religion is a much more apt description of your love to the State.

    4. I don't love the state, in fact, the U.S. as a nation may not last more than a decade or so. O.k. maybe two decades.

      As I said earlier, since they have subsidized outsourcing, they have destroyed your free market model (that's not the only thing they've done, it's broken in dozens of ways).

      We aren't in anything that even approaches a free market, and never will be.

      If you have a model of how airplanes fly, that depends on certain atmospheric conditions, and those conditions are never met, your airplane built to those specifications will obviously crash, not fly.

      Your model is invalid. All models are invalid, at this point.
      The economy is going to crash.

      This is why economics is religion. I'm an economic atheist.

      I voted for Gary Johnson, as a Libertarian will do the least damage, and as a protest vote against the main parties.. That doesn't mean that society will recover under a Libertarian. it can't recover under anybody, really, all you can do is slow the rate of descent.

      All societies are based on implicit or explicit social contracts. All of those contracts have been violated by the elites, and they have no intention of allowing any to come into existence to replace them.

      Without social contracts, societies cease to function. The article I posted above about young people ignoring training in machine automation, is because, as rational actors, they see no reason to put out more effort to get a job that pays as little as fast food jobs with no training. That's reasonable. I don't think Libertarians expect labour to do charity work for their employers.

      This is because the current ideology of management is to squeeze labour, no matter what. Consequently, many of their businesses will fail, from lacked of skilled labor, they're unwilling to pay for. The young people will find lucrative employment doing something else, if they can. This is a decision by management, to cut their own throats. we are in Phase 4 capitalism (see my breakdown above), and many a company's management really don't care if their business fails, as they leave with huge golden parachutes, no matter what. They don't give a damn.

      A libertarian President with a libertarian Congress, if it ever existed, could not reverse the current self-destructive management attitudes even if they wanted to, and of course being libertarian, they don't want to. But the other political parties are worse, they will try to employ the state to fix this. That won't work either.

      Beyond economics, the U.S. society is shredding itself. Committing suicide. Our economic systems are failing too, in a complex interaction. The problems are deeper than economics, the problems are spiritual. (And I'm not a Christian, either)

    5. Social contracts and spiritual decline. It figures that such figments of imagination necessitate similarly magical wand-waving cures by government witch doctors.

      Social contracts don't exist, because the phrase is an oxymoron. I prefer voluntary association, not forced, unending expropriation.

      Anytime some politician or numbskull (I repeat myself) raises specters like "social contracts," "social justice," "the greater good," et cetera, watch your pockets. People are easily conned by feel-good slogans. Especially if they cannot be defined and invoke fealty to supposed higher authorities, such as mommy and daddy government to work it all out for all of us mundanes.

    6. @anonymous

      Social contracts can't always be totally voluntary. If you are born American or British, or Russian, or whatever, certain things are given and certain things are expected. Now there is a wing of libertarianism that is something like an anarchist. Not in the sense of throwing rocks, but in the sense that, they only do what they want to do..

      Well, you can do that. You can live on an island. That way you pay low or no taxes, no-one bothers you. But don't expect protection from crime, disaster relief, or legal protection in your limited dealings with people off the island. And when you grow older (not necessarily old) minor health problems may kill you.

      Something like going off grid, which people do, but usually with the help of others..

      By the way, 'social contracts' have nothing to do with 'social justice'. A contract is a contract. An agreement, nothing more.
      It is usually assumed that both parties in an agreement are operating in good faith, and are expected to honour said agreement.

      Social Justice is a different matter altogether. Issues with social justice have increased markedly with the rise of globalism, which actually started in the late 1800's with the industrial revolution.

      The final goal of the globalists is to ride the expected collapse in human population, and manage it. They will ride it out on everyone else's backs, and keep the right and left fighting each other to distract away from this. Social Justice is a symptom and a warning, not a cause, of the coming collapse.

      Human populations are following an exponential curve, just like the Nasdaq in 1999-2000. It rose exponentially and collapsed. Human societies globally are poised to do the same thing. It has nothing to do with global warming, global cooling, none of that. It's what populations of animals do.

      Your antagonism to social justice issues is odd, in a way, unless you come from a very rich family. Even then it's odd, as they (the wealthy) are usually untouched by these things, financially.

      There are wealthy people who dislike poor people the way that Fundamentalist hate gays, just because they exist.

      Marie Antionette come to mind here as a very old example.

    7. By the way, social contract certainly do exist, they just don't exist for you because you don't like the idea.

      Google search "social contract" , 263,000 results.

      For definition, go here:

      Now though it's true that some Government programs go beyond the original idea of social contracts, they are still valid until formally removed. As in any other arrangement with legal ramifications.

  21. @fizzywig

    I agree with you, I'm puzzled why these guys are fighting, as they agree on a number of things, I think some of it pride, and some is this religious fixation on doctrine. I think both of these guys have helped people understand what is going on in the current world,not perfectly, but generally yes.

    Economic systems are subsets of all that happens in these things we call 'societies' and are heavily influenced by politics and business cycles and other cycles in other areas of a nations existence. So understanding what's going on has more to do with being very observant across the board, and seeing which groups have the most power and influence at the moment. 'Follow the money' not the models, if you want to see what makes any economy function. And by function, I don't mean to say most of them function well, or if they do, it's relatively brief. Life is really messy.

    The value that economic models have is that societies do approach some of these ideal states at certain times, and during those times the models have some validity, but you can't push it too far. They will slip away from ideal states fairly rapidly.

  22. I wonder how Keiser knew I was white trash?

  23. forget free markets. It will never work. Business owners will always look for ways to continually increase profits at any expense (hence vast outsourcing). their bottom line is their shareholders and their money, not the health of their economy. It stands as common sense that profits cannot continually increase year over year forever. That's an obsurdity. so yes, increase minimum wage (to start) and bring in regulation of the markets in order to keep large corporations from increasing their prices of their products in the name of higher profits.

    Before any of you go on a rant about the inherent flaws of this idea, let me first point out that I understand this would never work either; just like free markets. I understand that my idea also necessitates an intelligent and well-informed public - which we lack. I understand that this increase in wages would most likely result in greedy ventures and massive unnecessary spending which will shoot up the prices on already diminishing resources.

    Which now brings me to the real, I would say, most important issue of all.......getting to an intellectually, intelligently, well-informed people. But I stand to believe free markets would never work. an equal amound of regulation is needed to offset the inherent greed.

  24. But if we raise the minimum wage, won't that combat the Fed's policy of artificially lowering unemployment through artificially lowering wages by inflating the dollar???

    Derrrr derpa derr...

    1. "Derrrr derpa derr..." I couldn't find the meaning of that phrase in any language. Sorry.

      Other than that, you may be right. But you know what they say: "Give me Liberty or give me Death."

  25. It is funny to me when someone argues that there is no "legitimate rape" (which I agree with) and at the same time argues that social security is indeed a legitimate form of rape because it is a "social contract". I didn't sign that contract but I am forced to participate.