Friday, December 6, 2013

Pope Francis Meet Nicholas Maduro

By Jeff Crouere

In just a few months, Pope Francis has made quite an impact on the Catholic Church. He has shown admirable qualities of compassion and humility and offered stern warnings for Church leaders to focus on their true mission, instead of the trappings of their position.

At the same time, he has won the praise of the liberal media and leftist politicians like President Obama. They were certainly overjoyed when the Pope cautioned his flock from being “obsessed” with issues such as abortion and gay marriage. He also expressed concern about Catholics who attend Latin mass noting that following the traditional services could risk “ideologization” and “exploitation.”

While somewhat disturbing, these comments pale in comparison to his recent denunciation of capitalism.

Last week, Pope Francis released his first encyclical, which labeled “trickle down economics” a major failure that “expresses a crude and na├»ve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.”  In the Pope’s view, the poor have been left out by rich capitalists and that a more equitable system focusing on economic justice is necessary to combat poverty.

The document served as a shocking attack on the most successful economic system ever devised, capitalism. Only liberals like Pope Francis equate capitalism with the loaded term “trickle down economics.” For all its faults, capitalism and “trickle down economics” is a much better model for prosperity for all citizens. It worked during the 1980’s in this country and led to the creation of over 20 million new jobs. It also worked in other countries throughout the world, such as Chile.

The best way to help a poor person is to give that individual a job, not a government program. Capitalism lifts people out of poverty, while socialism distributes crumbs of assistance to the poor, dooming people to an existence of misery.

The Pope said that the "idolatry of money" would lead to a "new tyranny." Yet, this system has created an untold number of rich philanthropists who have generously contributed to Catholic causes and helped the Vatican maintain a worldwide network of activities.

It seems that Pope Francis prefers socialism or Marxism, two systems which have continued to fail miserably throughout the world. In fact, the Argentine Pope only has to look at what is happening to the north of his native country. In Venezuela, a socialist dictator, Nicholas Maduro, has maintained the failed policies of the late Hugo Chavez. The result has been a total disaster for the poor people of Venezuela.

It is so bad in Venezuela, that there is a shortage of basic items such as toilet paper, newspapers and magazines. To address the continuing economic problems, Maduro spoke to the nation Monday night. However, in the middle of his speech, a power outage disabled 60% of the country.

How ironic and appropriate that the outage occurred as the President was issuing more decrees against the country’s diminishing private sector. It was similar to a major power outage that occurred in early September. Instead of taking responsibility for these embarrassments, Maduro hinted it was caused by some sort of sabotage by his political opponents.

In reality, the socialist government of Venezuela is always looking to shift blame for their failures, reminiscent of the current occupant of the White House. Maduro’s failed policies include a ridiculous campaign to regulate prices on items such as used and new cars. This is an attempt to limit the ability of Venezuelans to buy durable items such as vehicles as an investment hedge against the rampant 54 percent inflation rate and the plunging value of the currency.

Maduro is an enemy of the private sector and is working to reduce corporate salaries and shrink private sector profit margins. He has ordered the military to assume control of major outlets selling electronic goods. While he demands that his citizens save more and consume less, his government continues to grow.

In total, these actions limit freedom, all in the name of helping the poor. Of course, the complete opposite will occur as expanded government control will lead to more economic misfortune for the poor people of Venezuela.

It is outrageous for a country with the world’s largest crude oil reserves, estimated at 297 billion barrels, to have rampant poverty, a scarcity of basic necessities and a moribund economy.  

In a country with massive rivers and hydroelectric facilities that generate power for two-thirds of the population, blackouts are becoming routine, especially since the government nationalized this sector in 2007.

For the past 15 years, socialism has been tried in Venezuela. The result has been widespread corruption and utter incompetence, along with shortages, blackouts and overall economic misery. There have been few benefits for any segment of society, the poor, the middle class or the rich.

It should be crystal clear to any objective observer that socialism, such as the Venezuelan model, does not work. Hopefully, one day, Pope Francis and other liberal Catholic leaders will get the message.  


Obviously, Pope Francis has the best intentions, to help the poor and the powerless. Sadly, his recipe for success will only lead to more poverty, unemployment and hunger. For evidence, the Pontiff just needs to look at the disaster unfolding in Venezuela today.

Jeff Crouere is host of RingsidePolitics.com

42 comments:

  1. "Obviously, Pope Francis has the best intentions, to help the poor and the powerless."

    I don't care about his intentions. He is advocating for the death of countless millions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bingo! I'm sick of all of this, "well, his intentions are good". I don't give a shit! What good is "intentions" if it leads to hell on Earth? Fuck, what is with these emotional appeals? It's like listening to a teenage girl during PMS. Sheesh people!

      Delete
    2. Stalin and Mao both had great intentions as did Hugo Chavez and Castro. But look at the human destruction all have left in their wake from their good intentions. Having good intentions and then imposing them on others through the threat of force and violence is pure evil. While the Pope has no intention of directly imposing his views on others through the threat of force and violence, he apparently has no problem with a government doing it. I would say that makes him evil.

      Delete
    3. I believe in revealed preferences. If Pope Francis had truly good intentions with respect to poverty, then he would act accordingly by studying the issue before speaks.

      The facts that he has attacked the system that has relieved more poverty than any other system in the history of the world and that he has promoted the very policies that have caused nothing but murder, poverty and misery when ever tried, must mean that he does not care very much about murder, poverty or misery. I hate to say it, but he is more than old enough and educated enough to be so ignorant by accident.

      As a Christian, he should know that Jesus said that we should judge a tree by its fruits. The fruits of his suggested policies have always been evil.

      Delete
    4. Actually he doesn't mention capitalism once. "Trickle down economics" is just a modern phrase for "waiting for crumbs from the table." Try re-reading the parable of the rich man and Lazurus to bulk out the understanding. He is mainly concerned about the corrosive effects of consumerism and materialism, especially in the prosperous parts of the world. For all the wealth happiness does not abound for much needs more. A poor man shrugs to see his last penny go, but once he has saved 10,000, he tends to hang on to them. Needs more. Actually his possessions are beginning to possess him, and whilst pride increases, his soul begins to shrink. Hence the misery of the unwise rich, especially as reflected in their children

      Delete
    5. Pope Francis used the term "free market", instead of "capitalism", and he does it in the context of claiming that it is ineffective at benefiting the poor. Please see section 54. Later on, he The exact term that he uses does not matter. It is the meaning behind the words that count.

      If Pope Francis is indeed mainly concerned about the corrosive effects of consumerism and materialism, he should have simply focused on those issues as matters of individual choice. However, that is not what he did. He includes several paragraphs promoting the idea that various types of government force are needed to adjust the choices of individuals to ends of wise politicians. He is subtle, because he tries to hide it. However, the message is there.

      Delete
    6. A portion of my reply was cut off:

      Later on, he states "as long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems."

      He is quite clearly here attacking capitalism as a social system and promoting some sort of anti-capitalistic social system. He certainly is not simply saying that individuals ought to make moral choices within the context of a free market.

      Delete
  2. I'm seriously sick and tired of hearing about the "good intentions" of the "progressives". Libel of a public official requires proof of Actual Malice, which was defined as a "knowing or reckless disregard for the truth". The same standard should apply to "progressives". No matter how many times you explain to a "progressive" the difference between laissez faire and crony capitalism, it makes no difference. It's all still "capitalism". No matter how many times you explain the violence and poverty of Africa is the result of democratic socialism and the destruction of private property rights, it makes no difference. "Progressives" insist upon re-imposing their failed schemes every day all of the time in reckless disregard for the truth. Which is just about the same as knowing disregard for the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Like the socialists around the world that feed off the fruits of Capitalism, the Catholic church is no different. Like the socialists, it too depends on these supposedly ill gotten profits to fund its religious endeavors. Take away the profits and both implode. This pope is a fool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's like any other dumb shit socialist you could name. All emotion, no logic or thinking.

      Delete
  4. What was it Pathological Altruist?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Popes rarely write their own Encyclicals. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were rather exceptional in that they did most of their own writing (which is partly why they were such terrible administrators). I'd be willing to bet that most of this encyclical was farmed out to priests who allegedly specialize in economic and social issues. You know, liberal a-holes. Frankie then puts his stamp of approval on it. This encyclical is garbage. Prior popes have vociferously condemned socialism. Pius IX said flat out that one cannot be both a Catholic and a socialist. Now here we have a socialist pope. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
    The best thing that could happen to the church is for this pope to die soon. Then again, maybe Catholics need a pope as bad as he is to wake up and smell te coffee.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Judge Napolitano's article does a very good job of laying out the argument against the Pope's stated economic igorance. ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/andrew-p-napolitano/preaching-marxism/ ) and should be read by those interested.

    Also the point that needs to be made over and over again is the one that Tom Woods pounded into his book The Church and the Market: that as a science (like that of a subject such as geometry) its conclusions fall outside the purview of the Church's teachings on faith and morals. As such, the Pope's recent statements are nothing more than a leftist's rant against Capitalism. There is nothing by which Catholics should feel bound by his (obviously ignorant and incorrect) economic views.

    Also, while the Pope woefully leaves out any mention of central banking or the inherently corrupt relationship between government and big business, we should hastily dismiss every part of his argument because a number of the conclusions about how the current system adversly affects the lower and middle class have merit. While the conclusions are obviously wrong, we cannot be perceived as simply supporting the status quo.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow! Apparently the the people here believe the teachings of Jesus have no business being included in the modern Christian church. You are all a bunch of anti-Jesus Christians. You have created a new form of Christianity that expels what Jesus taught from Christianity. Lest you all forget Mathew 25: 31-46. 'When the Son of man comes in his glory, escorted by all the angels, then he will take his seat on his throne of glory. All nations will be assembled before him and he will separate people one from another as the shepherd separates sheep from goats. He will place the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right hand, "Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take as your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome, lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me." Then the upright will say to him in reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, lacking clothes and clothe you? When did we find you sick or in prison and go to see you?" And the King will answer, "In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me." Then he will say to those on his left hand, "Go away from me, with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I steal the clothes from rich brother before I give them to my poor brother, am I a sheep or a goat?

      Delete
    2. Strawman much?

      Delete
    3. Wow! You really are missing the point. The point is that capitalism has done more to relieve poverty than any other social system in the history of mankind.

      Anyone who advocates for an anti-capitalistic social order, including Pope Francis, is working to take food away from the hungry and clothes from the naked.

      Saint Paul said that Christians should prove all things to determine whether or not they are true. Jesus said that a tree should be judged by its fruits. It has been proven time and time again that all anti-capitalist systems always fail to relieve poverty. The fruits of all anti-capitalist systems have been misery and suffering. Therefore anyone who truly loves his fellow man, must necessarily support capitalism.

      Those who do not support capitalism, such as Pope Francis, clearly love their anti-capitalistic ideologies more than they love their fellow man. By promoting their anti-capitalistic programs, they are revealing to the world that they prefer their false ideologies to the actual betterment of the poor.

      Delete
  8. Neither Jesus nor Francis are anti-capitialist. I certainly am not as I am one of the top real estate agents in the country and manage 24 people at a real estate company I created. To realize capitalism can be ruthless is not anti-capitalist. To realize that it must be tempered is to have something called empathy. The vicious like you will go to hell as Jesus said. Capitalism is absolutely the best system. We all know that democrat or republican. Conservative or liberal. Communism does not work as we ALL KNOW. You need to stop being having such a knee jerk reaction when a Christian does not believe capitalism is an infallible God. Don't elevate capitalism to greater heights than God or Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know how anti-capitalist you are or are not, because your comments don't contain the same kind of detailed criticism of capitalism made by Pope Francis. However, Pope Francis did make such a statement and did definitely promote anti-capitalist policies and ideologies.

      Also, just because you are a real estate agent does not mean you can not also be anti-capitalist. One has nothing to do with the other. Capitalism is a social order that promotes mutual cooperation amongst individuals. One's profession has nothing to do with the type of social order that they promote.

      A capitalist social order ruthlessly promotes social cooperation and consumer welfare which leads to reductions in poverty. Empathetic people generally prefer others to be better off and not worse off. Therefore, an empathetic person should be in favor of social systems that make people better off and oppose those systems that make people worse off. From my research, I am confident that capitalism makes people better off and anti-capitalist systems makes people worse off. How does that make me vicious?

      Communism is not the only form of anti-capitalism. Interventionism is another form. This is the form that was promoted by Pope Francis. It is also the form promoted by most political parties. It has also been proven time and time again to always fail to relieve poverty. Its fruits have also always been misery and suffering. Those who actually really care about their fellow men, need to be opposed to all forms of anti-capitalism, not just communism.

      Being in favor capitalism has nothing to do with knee jerk reactions or placing it above God or Jesus. Being in favor of capitalism comes from the study of the issues and caring about people. I want a social order that reduces poverty. I oppose social orders that increase poverty. Therefore, I support capitalism and oppose all forms of anti-capitalism.

      Delete
    2. You can have that opinion, but please don't call yourself Christian. One simply can not reject Jesus' teachings in Matthew 25:31-46 and call themselves Christian. You are an anti-Jesus Christian. Or simply an anti-Christian. People often think their will be one anti-Christ, but in fact there will be many. You and all those who twist or reject Jesus' actual teachings are anti-Christs. There are many conservative anti-Christ churches today that have eliminated "works" from Christianity. I think Jesus' brother and First Bishop of Jerusalem put it best in James 2: 13-26 Whoever acts without mercy will be judged without mercy but mercy can afford to laugh at judgement. How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good act claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, 'I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty,' without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that? In the same way faith, if good deeds do not go with it, is quite dead. But someone may say: So you have faith and I have good deeds? Show me this faith of yours without deeds, then! It is by my deeds that I will show you my faith. You believe in the one God -- that is creditable enough, but even the demons have the same belief, and they tremble with fear. Fool! Would you not like to know that faith without deeds is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by his deed, because he offered his son Isaac on the altar? So you can see that his faith was working together with his deeds; his faith became perfect by what he did.

      23 In this way the scripture was fulfilled: Abraham put his faith in God, and this was considered as making him upright; and he received the name 'friend of God'.

      24 You see now that it is by deeds, and not only by believing, that someone is justified.

      25 There is another example of the same kind: Rahab the prostitute, was she not justified by her deeds because she welcomed the messengers and showed them a different way to leave?

      26 As a body without a spirit is dead, so is faith without deeds.

      Delete
    3. I made it very clear above that I have not rejected Matthew 25:31-46. I simply pointed out that those who promote anti-capitalistic projects and ideologies, such as Pope Francis, are the rejecting it because they prefer to promote projects and ideologies that take food and clothing away from the poor rather than actually making the poor better off.

      Similarly, the quote that you give from James 2:13-26 underlines the point that I have been making nicely. Faith without good deeds is dead. Anti-capitalistic policies always cause misery and suffering. Therefore, those who promote anti-capitalistic policies, such as Pope Francis, are not only failing to do good deeds, but, even worse, are actually promoting bad deeds.

      Just saying that you care does not mean that you actually do care. If you actually do care, then you need to do the type of things that actually make people better off, not worse off. That means those who care need to support capitalism.

      Both quotes just show how incorrect your position is.

      Delete
    4. All these religious arguments always come down to one thing:

      "Thou shalt not steal."

      There isn't even disagreements over the translation by any Christian denomination.

      If I granted that some Jews might claim that the translation extends only to kidnapping, there are still are several uses of the word within the old testament extending purely to private property.

      It all comes down to this simple commandment, stomping any other biblical argument. It is incontrovertible, it is a commandment, it is a universal tenant accepted by almost all other religions as well and a fairly fundamental staple of most civilized societies.

      People voluntarily living in a commune are even adhering to it due to the fact they are VOLUNTARILY giving away their property.

      When people are forced to give away their property(which is what happens in most communist societies), then it becomes theft, pure and simple. Naturally, this doesn't only extend to involuntary communist societies, but "democracies" and "republics" as well.

      You can reference a billion other quotes within the Bible talking about the difficulties of being rich and making it into heaven, but it doesn't matter in the context of this most basic commandment. Making rich people poor is not the solution to getting more people in heaven.



      Delete
    5. I don't even consider this a religious argument. Pope Francis and the commenter here who is trying to defend him, are trying to promote a vicious and evil economic ideology by trying to hide it behind a pretended advocacy of Christianity.

      By using the concept of revealed preferences, it is easy to see that both Pope Francis and the commentator prefer the promotion of their evil economic ideology to the actual goals of the religion that they pretend to advocate.

      Delete
    6. And the first commandment is "thou shall have no other gods besides me". I hope one day you wake up with mercy in your heart and stop worshiping the 'golden calf' that of unfettered capitalism.

      Delete
    7. I don't worship capitalism. Just because you characterize someone that appreciates it as "worshiping it" so you can stay unchallenged in your world view, well, that doesn't make it reality.

      "Thou shalt not steal". Plain and simple. You either live it, or you don't. If you want to argue how it doesn't apply, feel free. If you agree with that commandment, maybe you can explain to us how any government that takes money forcibly from some people and hands it to others can be exempt.

      Delete
    8. Capitalism is not a religion to be worshiped. It is a social order that promotes mutual cooperation amongst individuals. Interventionism is a social order that promotes violence amongst individuals.

      Social orders based on mutual cooperation are better than social orders based on violence at providing food to the hungry and clothes to the naked. Anyone with mercy in their heart for the poor would therefore work to achieve a social order based on mutual cooperation.

      Delete
  9. I'll stay with pure Jesus, you can stay with pure capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, After all of that, you are still trying to run away from the truth.

      Anyone who advocates for an anti-capitalistic social order, including Pope Francis and yourself, is working to take food away from the hungry and clothes from the naked.

      Therefore, all such advocates are necessarily opposed to the teachings of Jesus that tell us to help the poor.

      There is no pure teaching of Jesus that instructed believers to harm the poor. Therefore, those who promote anti-capitalistic policies can not be said to be following His teachings by doing so.

      Delete
  10. Jesus made it very clear what will happen to the 'ruthless'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interventionism has always not only failed to help the poor, but has always caused misery and suffering. Anyone with love or mercy in their hearts must oppose it. Those who would prefer to promote interventionist ideas which hurt people as opposed to free market ideas that actually help people, are ruthless in their disregard for the well being of their fellow men.

      Delete
  11. The word capitalism does not even appear in the Apostolic Exhortation entitled The Joy of the Gospel. In fact, there is nothing new in what Francis says about economics in this document at all. These insights are a part of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church and have been for a very long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are hiding behind words again. Pope Francis used the term "free market", instead of "capitalism". Please see section 54.

      Who cares how new or old a fallacy is? It is just as wrong, no matter how old it is. However, the older the fallacy, they more evil it is to promote it because it has already been refuted so many times before.

      People who truly care about the well being of their fellow men will not attack the free market, but promote it.

      Delete
    2. You are crazy. You are still fighting a battle that was decided in 1991 when the Soviet Union fell. Their is no pure capitalism today except the most barbaric countries. Most people (except the far right) believe in basic human dignity and empathy. Public schools, basic health care, pollution regulation, parks, student loans, a minimum wage are all accepted as reasonable and if someone believes in those things they are not anti-capitalist. Only the nut jobs believe in unfettered capitalism. You are merciless and you will be judge with the same mercy you granted others during your life.

      Delete
    3. "Public schools, basic health care, pollution regulation, parks, student loans, a minimum wage are all accepted as reasonable and if someone believes in those things they are not anti-capitalist."

      Assuming that you are coming from the perspective that only government can provide the above(which I'll get to in a moment), you have to justify breaking the commandment "Thou shalt not steal." in order to accomplish the above.

      Tell me your theological justification for it.

      Now, several of the items you listed above CAN be accomplished without gov't stealing money from people and have been in the past(if not currently, like student loans for example) if not currently by the private sector.

      "You are merciless and you will be judge with the same mercy you granted others during your life."

      It doesn't surprise that you would presume to judge like God, but more importantly you assume that those benefitting from capitalism would not be charitable...which itself is "merciless" and "crazy" as you put it because history shows otherwise.

      Once you understand that liberty minded people believe that human suffering is best relieved by "unfettered capitalism" you can at least focus on philosophical arguments rather than demonization/demagougery, which leads you to nowhere good.

      Delete
    4. I can not see how making another incorrect argument, filled non sequitur, name calling, and falsehoods) can be considered a good deed under any religious believe system.

      Caring about your fellow man enough to take the time to study issues of poverty and thereby recommending policies that actually help people is not crazy. (name calling and falsehood)

      The failure of the Soviet Union, which had one of the forms of anti-capitalistic social systems, that is communism, does not in any way prove that another form of anti-capitalistic social system, that is interventionism, leads to an improvement of human well being. (Non sequitur)

      I believe in human dignity and empathy. It is because I believe in human dignity and empathy that I oppose all forms of anti-capitalism. (Wow, non sequitur, combined with name calling, and a falsehood all-in-one)

      Private schools, private health care, damage related pollution legal actions, private parks, private loans and charity are all capitalistic, by definition. Government schools, government health care, bureaucratic pollutions regulations that are not damage related, government parks, government loans and minimum wage laws are anti-capitalistic, also by definition. If one wished to make an honest argument, one tries to stick to clear definitions. If someone believes in anti-capitalistic things, then they are anti-capitalistic by definition. (falsehood)

      Just because some people consider certain anti-capitalistic policies to be reasonable, does not make them so. For them to be reasonable, they must be able to achieve their desired ends. For instance, minimum wage laws have forced massive numbers of people around the world into unemployment and poverty. Some, on a relative basis, benefit by the decreased competition from the forcibly unemployed. However, the benefits to the privileged must necessarily be less than the harm done to the injured masses since the reduction in workforce necessarily leads to a reduction in social output. Therefore, minimum wage laws could only be considered reasonable by someone who's goal it was to increase poverty. (falsehood)

      Economics is a science of applying means to achieve ends. As with any other branch of knowledge, such as mathematics, it is just a tool. If one takes the statement "5 + X = 7" and wants to solve for X, one can use the laws of mathematics to determine that "X = 2". In the same way, those who want to help the poor can use economics to determine that capitalism is the recommended solution. One is not a "nut job" because they earnestly seek the best solution to a problem. (falsehood and name calling)

      I am not merciless at all. I care very much. Many hundreds of millions of people, all over the world, have been viciously and mercilessly harmed by the evil doctrines of anti-capitalism and those who promote it. That is why it is so important to stand up against those who pretend to care, but either don't actually care, or are too lazy to actually take the time to figure out that the type of anti-capitalistic policies suggested by Pope Francis are pure evil. (name calling)

      Delete
    5. One of my degrees is in Economics. And I graduated at the top of my class with a 3.6/4 GPA. You sound like those people who took Macroeconomics 101 and have a very rudimentary understanding of how the economy works. Proof that very little knowledge can be very dangerous. I've seen this often. You take A causes B and have no idea that there is even a C, D ,E, F, and G out there. You see a demand curve and a supple curve and that's all. You have forgotten even about elastic and inelastic and that is still a very basic part of Macroeconomics that is taught in 101. Macroeconomics does not teach you the intricacies of Labour. You have no idea the actual degree of effect that each policy might cause. You know only the direction the curves and equilibrium will move but not how far they will move or how when that equilibrium moves how it will effect totally different areas of the economy and their curves and equilibriums. You are simple man who by necessity must make things simple and put them in simple terms.

      Delete
    6. I'll try to explain with an example. Let us take the minimum wage. If you raise the minimum wage to $10.50 an hour prices will go up, employment will go up. I agree with all that because they are economic facts. If you survey 100 economists at least 80% would agree with the statement "Raising the minimum wage causes unemployment." I am one of them.

      When runs a restaurant their are many costs not just labor: rent, interest, the food, etc. Your typical fast food restaurant has about a 22% labor cost. So, by increasing the minimum wage from $10.50 from $7.25 you raise labor costs 44.8% but you only raise total costs by 9.9% (44.8% x 22%(it is actually less because managers don't just make minimum wage)). The average cost of a meal at a fast food restaurant is $6.00. This means the prices go up 10% to $6.60.

      Now employment will drop 10% right. No, wrong. Demand for fast food is inelastic. Few people will stop buying fast food because of a 10% increase in price. A very recent Bloomberg study showed demand would drop 2.7% due to this inelasticity. Employment would drop 2.7% at this restaurant. Now the average person in this industry must spend an extra 9.9 days a year unemployed (2.7% x 365) but their wages go up 44.8%. In other words they make about 40% more a year and work 10 days less on average. (Actually many probably just end up working 2.7% fewer hours a week.).

      Another effect is that about 50% of all persons making between $7.25 and $10.10 an hour receive some form of government assistance. This would represent an opportunity to cut the applicants to these programs. Right now you and I are subsidizing peoples hamburgers.

      Similar math applies to retail and other minimum wage sectors do to labor being only part of the costs and inelastic demand curves.

      The Wall Street Journal estimated that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would effect 24% of all ADULTS.

      Finally, their is the argument that our manufacturing can't compete at lower wages in other countries. That ship has sailed, at $7.25 or $10.50 it makes no difference. The minimum wage in China is $1.50-$2.50 depending on province and 58cents in Mexico. The U.S. competes in industries that require strong infrastructures, a highly educated work force, and that are very capital intensive. As such we need to increase spending on education if you want lower unemployment in America. And here I open a whole other can of worms where you say we need higher standards and not more spending. First I wholeheartedly agree with you with regard to higher standards, but the same people who will tell you that spending on education won't get a better product are the very people who would fully acknowledge spending more on a house, a car, or particular clothes gets you a better house, car, etc. According to them you get something better when you spend more in capitalism but magically that doesn't work in education.

      So, raising the minimum wage causes unemployment. I agree. But, apposing the minimum wage or its increase does make you rather simple minded if you rally did UNDERSTAND capitalism.

      Delete
    7. I went through your post, line-by-line. Yet, your most recent response is just like all of your other responses, more name calling, non sequitur and falsehoods, without ever addressing the issue at hand.

      Delete
    8. My post from 3:44 PM was in reply to your post of 2:16 PM. Your post of 3:02PM was not visible at the time. I do appreciate that you have attempted to address a specific issue in your 3:02 PM post and that you only named called once. This form of debate is much more productive. Thank you.

      Unfortunately, I still have to disagree. If raising the minimum wage rate causes unemployment, then the reduction of employed persons will cause a reduction in total social output, regardless of how the injuries and benefits to the various parties work themselves out. There will necessarily be less to go around, regardless of the elasticities assumed.

      It is not magic that causes government spending on education not to work in the same way as private, profit oriented spending. If a private school does not provide acceptable services to it's customers, the parents of the students, customers will flee to other schools and the school will suffer losses which cause it to lose capital. If it loses too much capital, it goes out of business. This does not happen with government spending. It's a different animal and must be analyzed differently.

      Cheers!

      Delete
    9. I addressed the issue at hand very directly. I could not possibly have been more direct. See its complicated and you can't respond because it would be either to taxing on your brain or if you could follow it you would change your mind. You won't think because you want it to be simple and you will remain as ignorant as you possibly can for as long as you can. You are a vicious, merciless, ruthless person and I have proven it. You are not a Christian and you reject what Jesus taught. You have failed on 2 levels. First, you fail to understand capitalism and the economy. Second, you fail to understand Jesus' teachings.

      Delete
  12. Wow! You are back to name calling again so soon.

    As you may have noticed, it takes time for the posts to become visible. (Even so, to be fair, you did only attempt to address one point, and you did include an insult at the end of your post as well.)

    See my post from 4:28 PM for my response to your post from 3:02 PM. For the insults included in your post from 5:57 PM, please see my numerous posts over the past few days. "Past few days" -- Wow!

    ReplyDelete
  13. No response.

    Too bad. I was curious to see if you were going to be able or willing to discover and admit that my four line critique of minimum wage laws in my post from 4:28 PM was not subject to the type of attacks you made in your posts of 2:16 PM and 3:02PM. The same goes for my paragraph on economics in the same post.

    Based on all of your previous responses, I was guessing not. Although, I even deliberately refrained from pointing out the technical errors in your post of 3:02 PM in an attempt to encourage you to think through the issues more deeply.

    You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

    ReplyDelete