User avatar
By Vegas
04 Feb 2021, 8:23 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules
User avatar
Vegas

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Over-bathroom Under-secretary of Awesomeness
Posts: 22,855
Politics: Conservative

Vegasgiants » 19 Apr 2021, 3:24 pm » wrote: Then enjoy your continued debate.  Lets see how it goes

As long as you act like an adult, you can stay. Good luck, I have never seen that from you before.

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

Vegasgiants » 19 Apr 2021, 3:04 pm » wrote: But you lost this one
 
Lol...  you really think it is that easy to be the very first idiot lib to ever prove me wrong?  Just blindly claim that I somehow "lost this one", without actually refuting any of my arguments and then call it a day while you cowardly run away, moron?  Sorry, but if you believe that load of rancid ****, you are only lying to yourself, chump.  It will be a very cold day in hell before I "lose" a debate to a **** retarded imbecile such as yourself.  But feel free to give it a shot, if you like to continue getting humiliated.

Good luck.
 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,314

Nighthawk » 20 Apr 2021, 6:14 pm » wrote: Lol...  you really think it is that easy to be the very first idiot lib to ever prove me wrong?  Just blindly claim that I somehow "lost this one", without actually refuting any of my arguments and then call it a day while you cowardly run away, moron?  Sorry, but if you believe that load of rancid ****, you are only lying to yourself, chump.  It will be a very cold day in hell before I "lose" a debate to a **** retarded imbecile such as yourself.  But feel free to give it a shot, if you like to continue getting humiliated.

Good luck.
Buh bye.  Not here....if you even see this

User avatar
Vegas

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Over-bathroom Under-secretary of Awesomeness
Posts: 22,855
Politics: Conservative

Vegasgiants » 20 Apr 2021, 6:18 pm » wrote: Buh bye.  Not here....if you even see this

Uh oh...middle school Mikey got beat again. 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

Vegasgiants » 20 Apr 2021, 6:18 pm » wrote: Buh bye.  Not here....if you even see this
Vegas already told you that if you behave like an adult, he won't delete your posts.  That doesn't seem to unreasonable.

Good luck.
 

User avatar
Vegas giants

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Track Star, Question Ducker
Track Star, Question Ducker
Posts: 8,314

Nighthawk » 20 Apr 2021, 6:25 pm » wrote: Vegas already told you that if you behave like an adult, he won't delete your posts.  That doesn't seem to unreasonable.

Good luck.
Hes a **** liar.  Buh bye

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

I will ask my amazingly simply question on this matter yet again, since none of the idiot libs have so far provided anything even slightly resembling a rational answer-

So for the people that based on their current skills, abilities, experience, etc.. can't earn a high enough wage in a free market to "support AT LEAST themselves", and society decides that they should be subsidized in some way as a result, why the hell do you idiot libs want to arbitrarily assign the responsibility of providing this subsidy to their employer? Employers are not adopting these people, they are simply an entity with which the workers are making an economic transaction. So why the hell should they have to give the workers any more in pay than the value the workers are providing to them? Why shouldn't the responsibility of providing a subsidy/charity to these people belong to society as a whole, to be collected and distributed in the fairest, most efficient, and least harmful manner possible?

I have asked this question of you idiot libs numerous times, and for some strange reason, none of you can ever give a rational answer. Can any of you idiot libs be the very first to do so?

Good luck.

Bump.

 

User avatar
SJConspirator

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 5,473
Politics: Green

Nighthawk » 21 Apr 2021, 7:26 pm » wrote: I will ask my amazingly simply question on this matter yet again, since none of the idiot libs have so far provided anything even slightly resembling a rational answer-

So for the people that based on their current skills, abilities, experience, etc.. can't earn a high enough wage in a free market to "support AT LEAST themselves", and society decides that they should be subsidized in some way as a result, why the hell do you idiot libs want to arbitrarily assign the responsibility of providing this subsidy to their employer? Employers are not adopting these people, they are simply an entity with which the workers are making an economic transaction. So why the hell should they have to give the workers any more in pay than the value the workers are providing to them? Why shouldn't the responsibility of providing a subsidy/charity to these people belong to society as a whole, to be collected and distributed in the fairest, most efficient, and least harmful manner possible?

I have asked this question of you idiot libs numerous times, and for some strange reason, none of you can ever give a rational answer. Can any of you idiot libs be the very first to do so?

Good luck.

Bump.


good lord, this guy is still going on about the minimum wage .  Of all the important topics facing our country, Nighthawk has no comment on any of them going on in other threads cuz NOTHING could compare to the importance of making sure working poor stay poor lol

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

SJConspirator » 21 Apr 2021, 7:40 pm » wrote: good lord, this guy is still going on about the minimum wage .  Of all the important topics facing our country, Nighthawk has no comment on any of them going on in other threads
 
I have plenty of comments on them, I just don't have the time to spend all night and day on forums like you loser liberal welfare queens.  Some people have these things called jobs, families, hobbies, responsibilities, etc..., *******.  That is why I limit my posts most of the time to very easy topics like this.  Hell, if you pitifully stupid cretins can't even grasp a simple subject, that based on basic economic theories and extremely simple logic, is so straightforward and cut-and-dried as the harm from moronic MW laws, what **** chance would you have to comprehend more complex topics? 
cuz NOTHING could compare to the importance of making sure working poor stay poor lol
How the hell does causing many of the working poor (that you are pretending to be so concerned about) to become unemployed completely because of moronic MW laws supposed to prevent them from staying poor, nimrod? 

And if that was supposedly my sinister goal, why the hell would I be advocating, as a lesser-of-two-evils, to provide aid in a manner that would result in roughly ***8 TIMES*** as much going to to each of the poor workers from a given amount of redistributed wealth compared to moronic MW laws, ****-for-brains?  Are you actually claiming that they way I supposedly want these poor people to "stay poor" is by giving them each MORE money???  Inside your head, this actually sounds like a logical argument, dolt?  Lol...


 

User avatar
SJConspirator

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 5,473
Politics: Green

Nighthawk » 22 Apr 2021, 7:38 pm » wrote: I have plenty of comments on them, I just don't have the time to spend all night and day on forums like you loser liberal welfare queens.  Some people have these things called jobs, families, hobbies, responsibilities, etc..., *******.  That is why I limit my posts most of the time to very easy topics like this.  Hell, if you pitifully stupid cretins can't even grasp a simple subject, that based on basic economic theories and extremely simple logic, is so straightforward and cut-and-dried as the harm from moronic MW laws, what **** chance would you have to comprehend more complex topics? 

How the hell does causing many of the working poor (that you are pretending to be so concerned about) to become unemployed completely because of moronic MW laws supposed to prevent them from staying poor, nimrod? 

And if that was supposedly my sinister goal, why the hell would I be advocating, as a lesser-of-two-evils, to provide aid in a manner that would result in roughly ***8 TIMES*** as much going to to each of the poor workers from a given amount of redistributed wealth compared to moronic MW laws, ****-for-brains?  Are you actually claiming that they way I supposedly want these poor people to "stay poor" is by giving them each MORE money???  Inside your head, this actually sounds like a logical argument, dolt?  Lol...

yeh yeh, yer a big important guy with very little time for the plebs.  **** off, jerk
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

SJConspirator » 22 Apr 2021, 7:42 pm » wrote: yeh yeh, yer a big important guy with very little time for the plebs.  **** off, jerk
So I am supposedly the jerk here, huh?

Throughout this thread, you have repeatedly falsely accused me of somehow wanting to hurt poor people like I am some kind of uncaring, heartless bastard, and yet I am supposedly the jerk?

Despite me repeatedly refuting your false accusations by showing that not only am I not advocating policies that hurt poor people, I am actually advocating lesser-of-two-evil policies that would help them far better than your moronic policies could ever dream of doing, you have still never apologized for those false accusations, and yet I am supposedly the jerk?

You have been tricked into supporting moronic MW laws by your liberal masters when they were brainwashing the ever-living **** out of you and you fell for it like a good little weak-minded sheep, and instead of being mad at them for tricking you, you say that I am supposedly the jerk?

As opposed to the way your masters have been lying to you, I have been graciously bestowing knowledge upon you ignorant "plebs" by educating you (free of charge, BTW) on the real truth of the harm of moronic MW laws (evidenced by the fact that no idiot lib has ever come remotely close to proving me wrong so far), and yet I am supposedly the jerk?

Despite the fact that I have answered every legitimate question and responded to all legitimate arguments, you idiot libs routinely dodge simple questions and run away like sniveling little cowards, and yet I am supposedly the jerk?


It sounds like you and I have very different views on what supposedly makes someone a jerk.  Lol...

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

I will ask my amazingly simply question on this matter yet again, since none of the idiot libs have so far provided anything even slightly resembling a rational answer-

So for the people that based on their current skills, abilities, experience, etc.. can't earn a high enough wage in a free market to "support AT LEAST themselves", and society decides that they should be subsidized in some way as a result, why the hell do you idiot libs want to arbitrarily assign the responsibility of providing this subsidy to their employer? Employers are not adopting these people, they are simply an entity with which the workers are making an economic transaction. So why the hell should they have to give the workers any more in pay than the value the workers are providing to them? Why shouldn't the responsibility of providing a subsidy/charity to these people belong to society as a whole, to be collected and distributed in the fairest, most efficient, and least harmful manner possible?

I have asked this question of you idiot libs numerous times, and for some strange reason, none of you can ever give a rational answer. Can any of you idiot libs be the very first to do so?

Good luck.

Bump.

 

User avatar
FOS

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11,284
Politics: Fascist

Nighthawk » 26 Apr 2021, 9:53 pm » wrote: I will ask my amazingly simply question on this matter yet again, since none of the idiot libs have so far provided anything even slightly resembling a rational answer-

So for the people that based on their current skills, abilities, experience, etc.. can't earn a high enough wage in a free market to "support AT LEAST themselves", and society decides that they should be subsidized in some way as a result, why the hell do you idiot libs want to arbitrarily assign the responsibility of providing this subsidy to their employer? Employers are not adopting these people, they are simply an entity with which the workers are making an economic transaction. So why the hell should they have to give the workers any more in pay than the value the workers are providing to them? Why shouldn't the responsibility of providing a subsidy/charity to these people belong to society as a whole, to be collected and distributed in the fairest, most efficient, and least harmful manner possible?

I have asked this question of you idiot libs numerous times, and for some strange reason, none of you can ever give a rational answer. Can any of you idiot libs be the very first to do so?

Good luck.

Bump.
Ok well...I'm not an idiot liberal...I'm a fascist. I'll answer.

Because you have created a society fueled by greed, employers might easily decide they just want more money. This means they can **** more 17 year old hoes, after all.

Meanwhile I am sure you agree that employers...if they simply decide to COLLECTIVELY screw workers, they can. This is why collusion is such taboo under capitalism. Yes? 

'fair competition' after all just works on an honor system. Anyone can decide to COLLABORATE, and totally cheat the system. 

Guess what? Collaboration need not be explicit. It can be totally implicit. 'i realize that if I compete for you on wages, you will compete with me. This is ultimately bad for the two of us.'

And supposing business owners just decide to do that? What 'self organizing' mechanism will fix that, especially when barriers to competition with markets is too high?

None.

So the state steps in. Minimum wage. **** your collaboration. You are STILL making a positive profit per worker, but not paying them enough. 
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

FOS » 26 Apr 2021, 10:10 pm » wrote: Ok well...I'm not an idiot liberal...I'm a fascist. I'll answer.

 
Well that is almost as bad.
Because you have created a society fueled by greed, employers might easily decide they just want more money. This means they can **** more 17 year old hoes, after all.
It doesn't matter how "greedy" they are or what they "decide", because as long as they (or some other entity on their behalf) are not using FORCE or FRAUD in some matter (i.e a free market), they will only be able to make more money by better serving their customers.  Period.
Meanwhile I am sure you agree that employers...if they simply decide to COLLECTIVELY screw workers, they can.
No, why the hell would I agree to something that is economically illiterate nonsense?
This is why collusion is such taboo under capitalism. Yes? 
No, besides economic illiteracy, the reason that there are laws against these kinds of things is because it is generally much easier for weaker companies to get help from the government to cripple the superior companies than it is to actually improve their own companies to compete against them fairly.
'fair competition' after all just works on an honor system. Anyone can decide to COLLABORATE, and totally cheat the system. 
No, they can't.  You apparently don't understand basic cartel theory.  The only possible way for members of a cartel to successfully alter the prices of  goods or services significantly apart from fair market value in the long term (whether buying or selling them) is with the use of FORCE, either by themselves or from the government or another entity using it on their behalf.  This is because without using FORCE, there is no way that the cartel can stop new entrants from swooping in, or from existing cartel members from cheating on the agreement, to steal their excess profits for themselves.  Take the following simple example-

Suppose a group of companies in some region selling similar widgets decide to form a cartel and raise the price of their widgets from $10 in a free market to $100 each under the cartel.  While it is true that this will result in fantastic profits for the members of the cartel as long as it holds together, there is a MASSIVE incentive for a new entrant into the industry, or one of the existing cheating members, to sell their widgets for say, $70 each.  While this is lower profit per widget than selling them for $100 each, they will more than make up the difference by the the massive increase in volume, since they will pretty much have the entire widget market to themselves by undercutting all the other cartel members.  And likewise, there is still a MASSIVE incentive for yet another new entrant to swoop in and undercut that company and sell their widgets for say, $50 each.  And this will continue to be the case on and on and on until the price of the widgets eventually gets back down to fair market value of $10 each as the cartel collapses.


This is why examples of cartels not using FORCE in the real world are extraordinarily rare and typically involve only a small group of companies in some kind of niche industry with very high barriers to entry, and even in these cases they are generally only able to fix prices slightly apart from fair market value to reduce the incentives for new entrants or cheating.  Hell, even OPEC, which involves governments using FORCE, still has continuous problems with rampant cheating by many member nations.  The belief that some industries as ubiquitous as those that typically employ unskilled labor that are not using FORCE would be able to significantly fix prices for that labor is insanely idiotic.


And even if your silly little theory was correct, why would it only involve unskilled labor?  Why wouldn't we supposedly need big nanny government to set wage levels for every single occupation in existence, lest the evil employers "COLLABORATE" to "screw workers" of all types?  Why aren't all the professional or higher-skilled workers such as computer programmers, accountants, engineers, managers, etc.. that are not in a union being "screwed" like you claim would supposedly happen with unskilled laborers?  Why are all these supposedly greedy employers paying these professional or higher-skilled non-union workers one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law, if they really have this magical power over wages to which you ascribe them?  This is yet another simple question that I have never seen anyone believing this nonsense give a rational answer.
Guess what? Collaboration need not be explicit. It can be totally implicit. 'i realize that if I compete for you on wages, you will compete with me. This is ultimately bad for the two of us.'
That is great if there are only two of us employing people in some region, but that is not the case for about 99.999+ percent of people living in the US.  For most everywhere in the US, even if you don't compete with me on wages, there is a list of other "greedy" competitors about a mile long that will be very happy to do so in a nano second if I am significantly underpaying them.
And supposing business owners just decide to do that? What 'self organizing' mechanism will fix that, especially when barriers to competition with markets is too high?

None.

So the state steps in. Minimum wage. **** your collaboration. You are STILL making a positive profit per worker, but not paying them enough.
Again, examples where this can actually happen in the real world are extremely rare, especially for unskilled labor.  For almost all unskilled laborers, the "mechanism" that will "fix" this problem is just a simple free market, free from the use of FORCE.  Problem solved.


I appreciate your attempt to give a rational answer to my simple question, but sorry- no cigar.  You have apparently been reading too many fairy tales and not enough books on basic economics.  If you want to give it another try, feel free to do so.

Good luck.

 

User avatar
FOS

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 11,284
Politics: Fascist

Nighthawk » 30 Apr 2021, 12:18 pm » wrote: Well that is almost as bad.

It doesn't matter how "greedy" they are or what they "decide", because as long as they (or some other entity on their behalf) are not using FORCE or FRAUD in some matter (i.e a free market), they will only be able to make more money by better serving their customers.  Period.

No, why the hell would I agree to something that is economically illiterate nonsense?

No, besides economic illiteracy, the reason that there are laws against these kinds of things is because it is generally much easier for weaker companies to get help from the government to cripple the superior companies than it is to actually improve their own companies to compete against them fairly.

No, they can't.  You apparently don't understand basic cartel theory.  The only possible way for members of a cartel to successfully alter the prices of  goods or services significantly apart from fair market value in the long term (whether buying or selling them) is with the use of FORCE, either by themselves or from the government or another entity using it on their behalf.  This is because without using FORCE, there is no way that the cartel can stop new entrants from swooping in, or from existing cartel members from cheating on the agreement, to steal their excess profits for themselves.  Take the following simple example-

Suppose a group of companies in some region selling similar widgets decide to form a cartel and raise the price of their widgets from $10 in a free market to $100 each under the cartel.  While it is true that this will result in fantastic profits for the members of the cartel as long as it holds together, there is a MASSIVE incentive for a new entrant into the industry, or one of the existing cheating members, to sell their widgets for say, $70 each.  While this is lower profit per widget than selling them for $100 each, they will more than make up the difference by the the massive increase in volume, since they will pretty much have the entire widget market to themselves by undercutting all the other cartel members.  And likewise, there is still a MASSIVE incentive for yet another new entrant to swoop in and undercut that company and sell their widgets for say, $50 each.  And this will continue to be the case on and on and on until the price of the widgets eventually gets back down to fair market value of $10 each as the cartel collapses.

This is why examples of cartels not using FORCE in the real world are extraordinarily rare and typically involve only a small group of companies in some kind of niche industry with very high barriers to entry, and even in these cases they are generally only able to fix prices slightly apart from fair market value to reduce the incentives for new entrants or cheating.  Hell, even OPEC, which involves governments using FORCE, still has continuous problems with rampant cheating by many member nations.  The belief that some industries as ubiquitous as those that typically employ unskilled labor that are not using FORCE would be able to significantly fix prices for that labor is insanely idiotic.

And even if your silly little theory was correct, why would it only involve unskilled labor?  Why wouldn't we supposedly need big nanny government to set wage levels for every single occupation in existence, lest the evil employers "COLLABORATE" to "screw workers" of all types?  Why aren't all the professional or higher-skilled workers such as computer programmers, accountants, engineers, managers, etc.. that are not in a union being "screwed" like you claim would supposedly happen with unskilled laborers?  Why are all these supposedly greedy employers paying these professional or higher-skilled non-union workers one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law, if they really have this magical power over wages to which you ascribe them?  This is yet another simple question that I have never seen anyone believing this nonsense give a rational answer.

That is great if there are only two of us employing people in some region, but that is not the case for about 99.999+ percent of people living in the US.  For most everywhere in the US, even if you don't compete with me on wages, there is a list of other "greedy" competitors about a mile long that will be very happy to do so in a nano second if I am significantly underpaying them.

Again, examples where this can actually happen in the real world are extremely rare, especially for unskilled labor.  For almost all unskilled laborers, the "mechanism" that will "fix" this problem is just a simple free market, free from the use of FORCE.  Problem solved.

I appreciate your attempt to give a rational answer to my simple question, but sorry- no cigar.  You have apparently been reading too many fairy tales and not enough books on basic economics.  If you want to give it another try, feel free to do so.

Good luck.
What i am referring to is not some fairy tale. It is in fact a known economic phenomenon: https://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav ... 0collusion
it need not be a 'cartel'. There need not be any communication between the various people imposing this system...just an ability to look one move ahead and realize that competing with other companies for efficiency is bad for the salary of both CEOs

and no, it does not only involve unskilled labor. It does indeed screw high skilled workers as well...and this is why a CEO often makes hundreds of times more money than people who objectively have a more difficult job in their own company.

now sometimes you might get a john mackey (of whole foods)...who for some reason felt an ethical duty to treat his workers well...so he created an environment that was very good for his workers and paid them very well. He obviously didnt have to...and john mackey himself is absurdly poor for being the CEO of a major grocery chain. The guy drives a honda civic, ffs.

so what happened to whole foods? well it was bought out by amazon, which is of course **** to its workers.

and amazon is an interesting case study itself...because it basically operated in the red in order to drive other companies out of business until it finally had a strong monopoly on various services. How did it do this? how did it not simply run out of money in its early stages...and why didnt anyone in the state bother suggesting a trust-busting sort of thing...as they did for phone companies...and kinda sorta did with microsoft? Well...nobody in our lifetimes is gonna know how that was possible unless they are close with power.

one would expect that amazon was only possible with explicit collusion between amazon, top political donors, and the people with the power to investigate fraud etc. And i would go further...they colluded not because of mutual monetary profit...but rather because of tribal solidarity. (This is one of the fundamental flaws of 'capitalists'...the assumption everyone will seek money and have no other motivations. It is untrue. people can have other motivations, and cheat, and then all your models collapse)

anyway if we live in an environment were such a thing is possible...then it is pointless even to dream about minimum wage. but it does prove the point that minimum wage is desirable...and a sort of check against oppression from corporate oligarchs...as the 2nd amendment is supposed to be a check against political oppression 
 

User avatar
solon

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 12,475
Politics: Liberal

This GUTLESS COWARD NightrMORON is repeating himself over and over while running away like the GUTLES COWARD he is from the POINTS that show he is a ridiculous BRAINWASHED RANDINISTA MORON

User avatar
SJConspirator

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 5,473
Politics: Green

Nighthawk » 30 Apr 2021, 12:18 pm » wrote: Well that is almost as bad.

It doesn't matter how "greedy" they are or what they "decide", because as long as they (or some other entity on their behalf) are not using FORCE or FRAUD in some matter (i.e a free market), they will only be able to make more money by better serving their customers.  Period.

No, why the hell would I agree to something that is economically illiterate nonsense?

No, besides economic illiteracy, the reason that there are laws against these kinds of things is because it is generally much easier for weaker companies to get help from the government to cripple the superior companies than it is to actually improve their own companies to compete against them fairly.

No, they can't.  You apparently don't understand basic cartel theory.  The only possible way for members of a cartel to successfully alter the prices of  goods or services significantly apart from fair market value in the long term (whether buying or selling them) is with the use of FORCE, either by themselves or from the government or another entity using it on their behalf.  This is because without using FORCE, there is no way that the cartel can stop new entrants from swooping in, or from existing cartel members from cheating on the agreement, to steal their excess profits for themselves.  Take the following simple example-

Suppose a group of companies in some region selling similar widgets decide to form a cartel and raise the price of their widgets from $10 in a free market to $100 each under the cartel.  While it is true that this will result in fantastic profits for the members of the cartel as long as it holds together, there is a MASSIVE incentive for a new entrant into the industry, or one of the existing cheating members, to sell their widgets for say, $70 each.  While this is lower profit per widget than selling them for $100 each, they will more than make up the difference by the the massive increase in volume, since they will pretty much have the entire widget market to themselves by undercutting all the other cartel members.  And likewise, there is still a MASSIVE incentive for yet another new entrant to swoop in and undercut that company and sell their widgets for say, $50 each.  And this will continue to be the case on and on and on until the price of the widgets eventually gets back down to fair market value of $10 each as the cartel collapses.

This is why examples of cartels not using FORCE in the real world are extraordinarily rare and typically involve only a small group of companies in some kind of niche industry with very high barriers to entry, and even in these cases they are generally only able to fix prices slightly apart from fair market value to reduce the incentives for new entrants or cheating.  Hell, even OPEC, which involves governments using FORCE, still has continuous problems with rampant cheating by many member nations.  The belief that some industries as ubiquitous as those that typically employ unskilled labor that are not using FORCE would be able to significantly fix prices for that labor is insanely idiotic.

And even if your silly little theory was correct, why would it only involve unskilled labor?  Why wouldn't we supposedly need big nanny government to set wage levels for every single occupation in existence, lest the evil employers "COLLABORATE" to "screw workers" of all types?  Why aren't all the professional or higher-skilled workers such as computer programmers, accountants, engineers, managers, etc.. that are not in a union being "screwed" like you claim would supposedly happen with unskilled laborers?  Why are all these supposedly greedy employers paying these professional or higher-skilled non-union workers one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law, if they really have this magical power over wages to which you ascribe them?  This is yet another simple question that I have never seen anyone believing this nonsense give a rational answer.

That is great if there are only two of us employing people in some region, but that is not the case for about 99.999+ percent of people living in the US.  For most everywhere in the US, even if you don't compete with me on wages, there is a list of other "greedy" competitors about a mile long that will be very happy to do so in a nano second if I am significantly underpaying them.

Again, examples where this can actually happen in the real world are extremely rare, especially for unskilled labor.  For almost all unskilled laborers, the "mechanism" that will "fix" this problem is just a simple free market, free from the use of FORCE.  Problem solved.

I appreciate your attempt to give a rational answer to my simple question, but sorry- no cigar.  You have apparently been reading too many fairy tales and not enough books on basic economics.  If you want to give it another try, feel free to do so.

Good luck.

2 things.

1.  Your example of widget companies being unable to collude and become a monopoly, flies in the face of history and economics.  It presupposes that some company COULD come in and suddenly challenge major international corporations and take market share.  They cannot. Monopolies exist, high barriers to market entry exists, and FORCE as you like to put it is used to squash competition and protect the profits of the biggest players.  Your pretense that these things don’t exist just makes you seem naive.

2.  man, you really want to be right. 
 even if you “win” the argument , somewhere other than in your own mind, it doesn’t even matter?  This isn’t a court case,  minimum wage is not on trial and the stakes here couldn’t be lower,  I think you invest too much in trying to be right on a irrelevant msg board


Image
 

User avatar
Nighthawk

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 4,437
Politics: Libertarian

FOS » 30 Apr 2021, 1:21 pm » wrote: What i am referring to is not some fairy tale. It is in fact a known economic phenomenon: https://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav ... 0collusion
it need not be a 'cartel'. There need not be any communication between the various people imposing this system...just an ability to look one move ahead and realize that competing with other companies for efficiency is bad for the salary of both CEOs

 
Well if it is happening "implicitly", then it is even LESS likely to be successful in the long term and everything I posted above is MORE likely to happen to cause it to collapse, assuming it is not some obscure niche industry and the fixed price is more than just slightly different than fair market value.  At least if it is "explicit", then the other members of the cartel can exert some level of peer pressure against any firm that chooses to cheat on the agreement.  If there is absolutely no agreement in the first place, and there is a very large difference in price from fair market value, then what is there to stop some company from cheating to their heart's content, to the detriment of all the other competitors???
and no, it does not only involve unskilled labor. It does indeed screw high skilled workers as well...
So why did you dodge the simple question I asked above?  Here it is again for you-

Why wouldn't we supposedly need big nanny government to set wage levels for every single occupation in existence, lest the evil employers "COLLABORATE" to "screw workers" of all types?  Why aren't all the professional or higher-skilled workers such as computer programmers, accountants, engineers, managers, etc.. that are not in a union being "screwed" like you claim would supposedly happen with unskilled laborers?  Why are all these supposedly greedy employers paying these professional or higher-skilled non-union workers one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law, if they really have this magical power over wages to which you ascribe them?  This is yet another simple question that I have never seen anyone believing this nonsense give a rational answer.
and this is why a CEO often makes hundreds of times more money than people who objectively have a more difficult job in their own company.
Don't you see that highly paid CEO's, assuming they are not themselves the sole or majority owner of the company, completely destroys your dumb little theory?  Why the hell would the supposedly "greedy" owners of the company vastly overpay these particular employees when they supposedly could "COLLABORATE" and fix their wages to screw them like all the other workers???  And the same thing could be asked for other highly paid workers, like movie stars.
now sometimes you might get a john mackey (of whole foods)...who for some reason felt an ethical duty to treat his workers well...so he created an environment that was very good for his workers and paid them very well. He obviously didnt have to...and john mackey himself is absurdly poor for being the CEO of a major grocery chain. The guy drives a honda civic, ffs.

so what happened to whole foods? well it was bought out by amazon, which is of course **** to its workers.

and amazon is an interesting case study itself...because it basically operated in the red in order to drive other companies out of business until it finally had a strong monopoly on various services. How did it do this? how did it not simply run out of money in its early stages...and why didnt anyone in the state bother suggesting a trust-busting sort of thing...
Again, don't you see how the examples in your own post are completely destroying your fairy tale theories?  Amazon cut its prices down to the bone, even selling things at a loss in many cases, to undercut all its competitors and gain market share, which you have been telling us would not happen because it would supposedly "ultimately be bad" for them and they would supposedly be in an "implicit" cartel to keep their prices high.  Oops, there goes that dumb little theory...
as they did for phone companies...
Ma Bell had a monopoly that could be abusive because it was protected by government FORCE, which I very, very clearly stated above was pretty much the only way this could occur in the real world- Link.

But Ma Bell could adopt such a pricing policy because of the telephone company’s monopoly position, which the government protected. Company officials knew that certain parts of its markets were tempting targets for potential competitors. But both Bell policy and public policy, backed by the police power of government, kept raiders out of these markets.
and kinda sorta did with microsoft?
The show trials against Microsoft were an example of what I clearly posted above-

the reason that there are laws against these kinds of things is because it is generally much easier for weaker companies to get help from the government to cripple the superior companies than it is to actually improve their own companies to compete against them fairly.
Well...nobody in our lifetimes is gonna know how that was possible unless they are close with power.

one would expect that amazon was only possible with explicit collusion between amazon, top political donors, and the people with the power to investigate fraud etc. And i would go further...they colluded not because of mutual monetary profit...but rather because of tribal solidarity. (This is one of the fundamental flaws of 'capitalists'...the assumption everyone will seek money and have no other motivations. It is untrue. people can have other motivations, and cheat, and then all your models collapse)
WTF are you babbling about?  How do these "other motivations" supposedly cause models of capitalism to collapse?
anyway if we live in an environment were such a thing is possible...then it is pointless even to dream about minimum wage. but it does prove the point that minimum wage is desirable...and a sort of check against oppression from corporate oligarchs...as the 2nd amendment is supposed to be a check against political oppression
How is a moronic MW law supposedly a "check against oppression" if the greedy employers are not the ones that pay the increased wages to the workers lucky enough to stay employed?  If you want me to repost the evidence that most employers of large amounts of unskilled labor could not afford to pay the beloved $15/hr being called for out of their profits even if they wanted to do so, just let me know.

User avatar
sooted up Cyndi

Share      Unread post

User avatar
Water Cooler Poleece
Water Cooler Poleece
Posts: 15,995
Politics: Beer and Popcorn

ROFL
Nighthawk » 02 May 2021, 4:27 pm » wrote: Well if it is happening "implicitly", then it is even LESS likely to be successful in the long term and everything I posted above is MORE likely to happen to cause it to collapse, assuming it is not some obscure niche industry and the fixed price is more than just slightly different than fair market value.  At least if it is "explicit", then the other members of the cartel can exert some level of peer pressure against any firm that chooses to cheat on the agreement.  If there is absolutely no agreement in the first place, and there is a very large difference in price from fair market value, then what is there to stop some company from cheating to their heart's content, to the detriment of all the other competitors???

So why did you dodge the simple question I asked above?  Here it is again for you-

Why wouldn't we supposedly need big nanny government to set wage levels for every single occupation in existence, lest the evil employers "COLLABORATE" to "screw workers" of all types?  Why aren't all the professional or higher-skilled workers such as computer programmers, accountants, engineers, managers, etc.. that are not in a union being "screwed" like you claim would supposedly happen with unskilled laborers?  Why are all these supposedly greedy employers paying these professional or higher-skilled non-union workers one single penny more than they are required to pay them by law, if they really have this magical power over wages to which you ascribe them?  This is yet another simple question that I have never seen anyone believing this nonsense give a rational answer.

Don't you see that highly paid CEO's, assuming they are not themselves the sole or majority owner of the company, completely destroys your dumb little theory?  Why the hell would the supposedly "greedy" owners of the company vastly overpay these particular employees when they supposedly could "COLLABORATE" and fix their wages to screw them like all the other workers???  And the same thing could be asked for other highly paid workers, like movie stars.

Again, don't you see how the examples in your own post are completely destroying your fairy tale theories?  Amazon cut its prices down to the bone, even selling things at a loss in many cases, to undercut all its competitors and gain market share, which you have been telling us would not happen because it would supposedly "ultimately be bad" for them and they would supposedly be in an "implicit" cartel to keep their prices high.  Oops, there goes that dumb little theory...

Ma Bell had a monopoly that could be abusive because it was protected by government FORCE, which I very, very clearly stated above was pretty much the only way this could occur in the real world- Link.

But Ma Bell could adopt such a pricing policy because of the telephone company’s monopoly position, which the government protected. Company officials knew that certain parts of its markets were tempting targets for potential competitors. But both Bell policy and public policy, backed by the police power of government, kept raiders out of these markets.

The show trials against Microsoft were an example of what I clearly posted above-

the reason that there are laws against these kinds of things is because it is generally much easier for weaker companies to get help from the government to cripple the superior companies than it is to actually improve their own companies to compete against them fairly.

WTF are you babbling about?  How do these "other motivations" supposedly cause models of capitalism to collapse?

How is a moronic MW law supposedly a "check against oppression" if the greedy employers are not the ones that pay the increased wages to the workers lucky enough to stay employed?  If you want me to repost the evidence that most employers of large amounts of unskilled labor could not afford to pay the beloved $15/hr being called for out of their profits even if they wanted to do so, just let me know.
 You know what I think is precious about you.. Your persistence on the topic..  :clap:  Your a diehard!

User avatar
crimsongulf

Share      Unread post

User avatar
        
        
Posts: 40,938
Politics: Capitalist

AbitaBeer
SJConspirator » 30 Apr 2021, 4:55 pm » wrote: 2 things.

1.  Your example of widget companies being unable to collude and become a monopoly, flies in the face of history and economics.  It presupposes that some company COULD come in and suddenly challenge major international corporations and take market share.  They cannot. Monopolies exist, high barriers to market entry exists, and FORCE as you like to put it is used to squash competition and protect the profits of the biggest players.  Your pretense that these things don’t exist just makes you seem naive.

2.  man, you really want to be right. 
 even if you “win” the argument , somewhere other than in your own mind, it doesn’t even matter?  This isn’t a court case,  minimum wage is not on trial and the stakes here couldn’t be lower,  I think you invest too much in trying to be right on a irrelevant msg board


 
I often wonder about those on both sides have ever had to make a payroll.
 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Annoyed Liberall, Arris, Benson13, Bidennextpresident, Bill Gates [Bot], Blutarski, Buffalo, Cannonpointer, ConsRule, Crazytrain, crimsongulf, Famagusta, FOS, Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Hank, Ike Bana, Jantje_Smit, nefarious101, neue regel, omh, PaperLi [Bot], Pinterest [Bot], Polar1ty, PoliticalPopUp, Semrush [Bot], SJConspirator, solon, sooted up Cyndi, Steve Jobs [Bot], Twitter [Bot], user1620678236, Vegas, Vegas giants, Yahoo [Bot], Yandex [Bot], Zeets2 and 575 guests