[Class War in America] Rolling Stone Calls Spade a Spade

[Illuminatus Primus]

The benefits of deregulation and supply-side economics. Even if they don't come out and state it, most of the assumptions of supply-side economists are still widely quoted, and implemented. Same goes with the deregulation mania.

Should you punish all economists who published articles endorsing supply-side economics? The ones employed as advisers by the administrations? And how would you expect a professional organization of economists

Doctors who attempt to actually practice AIDS denialism would lose their licenses and be liable for criminal and civil penalties.

Economists in general are not comparable to doctors. They do not treat symptoms, in most cases they publish studies in journals. Like a scientist. There's a social harm intrinsic in advocating and encouraging a clearly incorrect point of view like scientific denialism of HIV as the cause for AIDS. Yet we can't or don't do anything about really punishing those scientists? Should we not do the same for both them and economists? Both are making conclusions with social ramifications.

Only in the US. Your country is quite frankly a social disease. In most countries, it is taken for granted that we are all supposed to contribute to society, rather than regarding society as a parasite upon our individuality.

First of all, you suggested engineering-esque ethical standards as a solution for social culture and economic intellectual dishonesty or opportunism in the U.S. This just sounds like replying to "how is that going to work?" with "well fuck them then, it should." Which is fine if you feel the U.S. is a lost cause, but then implementing your scheme won't really make anything better, will it?

Second of all, Canada does not have the codifications you desire either. Neither do any of the major European states, to my knowledge. I feel like you're taking a hammer to a cultural problem that cannot simply be battered away.

What about the definition of "harm" do you consider to be exclusive of "gradual"?

It makes it harder to define and punish meaningfully. How long do we wait before we can definitively say this economist is guilty of hurting these people, strip him of license?

We're living in the middle of a working example right now: the subprime crisis, which was brought on in large part by the deregulation movement, which was in turn bolstered by support from prominent economists.

With all due respect, Mike, you're asserting this on your own authority with the only evidence I've ever seen you post to substantiate it is some journalism article. That's hardly authoritative. This is exactly what I'm getting at, there is meaningful debate about the origins of the subprime crisis and its causal factors. Its not an open and shut case in the economics profession, if organized along professional engineering lines, they'd be governing themselves. So we're back at square one, because they're not going to censure their colleagues over something they are not decided on.

And what about the "top dog" economists, like the ones running the Fed? Wouldn't it send a pretty striking public message if economists had licenses and the guy running the Fed lost his license for professional incompetence?

At the cost of politicizing the Fed. If you're pruning the Board of Governors based on their ability to uphold social democracy, you might as well have a direct government controlled central bank with a mandate to maintain an relatively equitable distribution of wealth and standard of living. That'd be a much more direct way of going about that. Of course introducing such interference.

Well, that's the other problem: without a licensing scheme, it doesn't really matter what your qualifications are. Once you have a licensing scheme, the people who are licensed can point to the people who aren't licensed and say "You don't even have a license!" The word "unlicensed" is a pretty harsh blow to credibility, but it cannot be used when no licensing scheme exists in the first place.

The fact that antievolutionist scientists and other sundry quacks who even lack a shred of qualification in well-peer-regulated and scientifically rigorous fields are able to share screentime or even bully-out the legitimately qualified suggests to me that these changes would not suddenly improve the social responsibility of CNN talking heads. Most of the talking heads don't even pretend to know anything about economics academically, much less be an economist. The problem here is a public apathy and journalistic disregard for qualification and academic and intellectual honesty and credibility across the board.

I agree its a problem Mike, but I don't see how realistically your concept could be credibly implemented. You're trying to apply a hammer to a broad-based problem of political and social culture, that is not easily reformed or overcome. I think your concept has limited but useful applicability in specific circumstances (like I said, holding economists to stronger standards of intellectual honesty in their sampling methods and statistical work, and censuring or prosecuting them for advising companies whom they are aware are engaging in fraud or unethical practices, like the 1980's savings and loans and the recent real estate boondoggle). Other measures, like stronger regulation of media and a much improved education and journalism culture and outlook (as well as a preference for distributivist ownership as opposed to media conglomeration), would help a lot too. But its part of a puzzle of reform.

[The Dark]

I can't speak for Ossus, but one thing I was taught in my economics courses was to never rely on a single statistic - in this case, the mean per capita income would increase, but median would decrease. A competent economist would note that there was growth, but that it was directed towards the upper class and was leading to a widening wage gap.

Speaking of the wage gap, it has been steadily widening for 30 years, right through periods when virtually all the economists seemed to agree that the economy was in great shape. That's another example of what I'm talking about.

It was relatively stable until about 8 years ago - from 1971 to 2001, the real income level for the bottom 90% of Americans moved by only 0.1% (albeit down by 0.1%), and for long periods of that time, there was a bad economy. The stagflation of the 70s and the Reagan recession were devastatingly bad.

It doesn't help that there is no standard of conduct. Illuminatus Primus earlier asked if I was suggesting that economists should be regulated like engineers. I would have to say "yes". They have a significant impact on national policy, and yet they are pretty much free of any licensing requirements or the possibility of a disciplinary hearing, unlike doctors and lawyers and engineers. Any ideologue "think tank" can hire highly qualified economists to spout whatever bullshit they want, and there is no penalty for anyone.

True. I think part of the problem in developing an economists' licensing group is how small the economic community is. Canada has over 160,000 licensed engineers (according to Engineers Canada). In the entire United States, there are around 15,000 employed economists (per the Bureau of Labor Statistics). It's a small community with great divides in what theories are supported (Chicago school, Keynesians, neo-classicists, supply-siders, et cetera, ad nauseam). Basically, economics now is about at the level of Baconian science - sometimes we get the right result, but the methods are still questionable.

[Darth Wong]

Should you punish all economists who published articles endorsing supply-side economics?

In an ideal world? Sure, particularly once the flaws of this idea were well-known. Especially if they had financial incentive to support this agenda, which many of them did. Economics may be voodoo by the standards of science, but when you say things in a professional capacity that you could not get away with handing in as a university assignment, that's pretty obviously professional malpractice. Even in something that can be described as a voodoo science.

Doctors who attempt to actually practice AIDS denialism would lose their licenses and be liable for criminal and civil penalties.

Economists in general are not comparable to doctors. They do not treat symptoms, in most cases they publish studies in journals. Like a scientist. There's a social harm intrinsic in advocating and encouraging a clearly incorrect point of view like scientific denialism of HIV as the cause for AIDS. Yet we can't or don't do anything about really punishing those scientists? Should we not do the same for both them and economists? Both are making conclusions with social ramifications.

You forgot the part where I pointed out that economists have begun to exert significant influence on policy. Responsibility comes with power.

First of all, you suggested engineering-esque ethical standards as a solution for social culture and economic intellectual dishonesty or opportunism in the U.S. This just sounds like replying to "how is that going to work?" with "well fuck them then, it should." Which is fine if you feel the U.S. is a lost cause, but then implementing your scheme won't really make anything better, will it?

And you're responding to an idealized scenario by saying "well, I don't think it would fly". I never claimed it was likely to actually happen. I'm just saying that it would be better than the current situation.

Second of all, Canada does not have the codifications you desire either. Neither do any of the major European states, to my knowledge. I feel like you're taking a hammer to a cultural problem that cannot simply be battered away.

Yes, but Canada does not have the powerful rabid ideologue economics movement that the US has either, so the problem is not as serious.

What about the definition of "harm" do you consider to be exclusive of "gradual"?

It makes it harder to define and punish meaningfully. How long do we wait before we can definitively say this economist is guilty of hurting these people, strip him of license?

You don't have to be guilty of hurting people; you only have to fail to meet standards of conduct which were themselves intended to prevent harm. It's like saying that you have to wait until an engineer actually kills someone before disciplining him, no matter how incompetent he is. That would be silly.

We're living in the middle of a working example right now: the subprime crisis, which was brought on in large part by the deregulation movement, which was in turn bolstered by support from prominent economists.

With all due respect, Mike, you're asserting this on your own authority with the only evidence I've ever seen you post to substantiate it is some journalism article. That's hardly authoritative.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you arguing that no regulation could have prevented this, or that because I'm not an economist, I can't say that it could have? Have you been huffing paint or something? What complex economics principle is in play here which makes regulation impotent to prevent these kinds of problems? Is economics such an esoteric voodoo science that it is also immune to simple cause and effect relationships now, like "if government makes something illegal, corporations have to stop doing it?"

This is exactly what I'm getting at, there is meaningful debate about the origins of the subprime crisis and its causal factors. Its not an open and shut case in the economics profession, if organized along professional engineering lines, they'd be governing themselves. So we're back at square one, because they're not going to censure their colleagues over something they are not decided on.

Frankly, if the economics community can't even decide that the "must deregulate everything" argument is illogical and was irresponsible to promote, then that only takes us back to my earlier accusation that the whole field is a joke.

And what about the "top dog" economists, like the ones running the Fed? Wouldn't it send a pretty striking public message if economists had licenses and the guy running the Fed lost his license for professional incompetence?

At the cost of politicizing the Fed. If you're pruning the Board of Governors based on their ability to uphold social democracy, you might as well have a direct government controlled central bank with a mandate to maintain an relatively equitable distribution of wealth and standard of living. That'd be a much more direct way of going about that. Of course introducing such interference.

Hooray for black/white fallacies!

Well, that's the other problem: without a licensing scheme, it doesn't really matter what your qualifications are. Once you have a licensing scheme, the people who are licensed can point to the people who aren't licensed and say "You don't even have a license!" The word "unlicensed" is a pretty harsh blow to credibility, but it cannot be used when no licensing scheme exists in the first place.

The fact that antievolutionist scientists and other sundry quacks who even lack a shred of qualification in well-peer-regulated and scientifically rigorous fields are able to share screentime or even bully-out the legitimately qualified suggests to me that these changes would not suddenly improve the social responsibility of CNN talking heads.

Maybe not, but even a lot of highly educated people fall for this crap, in large part because they see highly qualified economists supporting it. It's not just the knuckle-dragger set we're concerned about; they're a lost cause anyway.

Most of the talking heads don't even pretend to know anything about economics academically, much less be an economist. The problem here is a public apathy and journalistic disregard for qualification and academic and intellectual honesty and credibility across the board.

I agree its a problem Mike, but I don't see how realistically your concept could be credibly implemented. You're trying to apply a hammer to a broad-based problem of political and social culture, that is not easily reformed or overcome.

We have three problems here:

1) Economics, like science, started as philosophers cooking up half-baked ideas of how things work, but without sufficient rigour to confirm and test their ideas. Unfortunately, science has done a far better job of rectifying the rigour problem than economics has.

2) Economists can say whatever shit they want with zero consequence. You can argue that rectifying this problem would not solve everything, but it would still have a positive effect.

3) I am quite aware that nobody in the field would accept such an idea. They are quite happy being completely unaccountable whores for Wall Street. My idea was never based on the idea that I seriously thought it was going to happen, so please dispense with the "But Mike, it won't happen" rebuttals. They're pointless.

I think your concept has limited but useful applicability in specific circumstances (like I said, holding economists to stronger standards of intellectual honesty in their sampling methods and statistical work, and censuring or prosecuting them for advising companies whom they are aware are engaging in fraud or unethical practices, like the 1980's savings and loans and the recent real estate boondoggle). Other measures, like stronger regulation of media and a much improved education and journalism culture and outlook (as well as a preference for distributivist ownership as opposed to media conglomeration), would help a lot too. But its part of a puzzle of reform.

Of course it's part of a puzzle of reform. Where the fuck did I say that this idea would instantly fix everything?

[Broomstick]

Yes, I do think that is the case, at least part of the time.

The official indices can say whatever the fuck they want, but when I go to apply for a job and they say "We're only paying minimum wage" THAT is the reality I have to deal with. Whether the same job pays twice as much somewhere else is irrelevant to my situation at that moment in time.

You do realize that the playing field is much larger then just you, right?

Yes. However, my and my family's survival is MY first priority, not what fast-food workers in California are making.

Does being unable to find a decent job suck balls? Hell yes. I'm in about the same situation you are in - fresh out of a job, in the midwest where no one is hiring. I've been stuck painting and re-siding houses and living off savings to get by until I can get into school.

Well, we have that in common - except that, having been a middle class drone for 20 years I probably do have a few more resources than you (paid for vehicles, for example) so that I haven't had to touch my savings yet. Which is no slam on you, it's just that I had 20 more years than you to build my personal life raft.

But that isn't true everywhere, or even in most places. Which is what he said, and you went after him for it.

I went after him because of the way he continually dismisses the negative aspects of the economy, with absolutely NO recognition that they represent suffering live human beings.

I am outraged not so much on my behalf, but because there are so many who are so much worse off than myself who shouldn't be. I'm poor, but my bills are paid in part because I had the wit to realize early in my life that my choices weren't going to lead to immense wealth and I planned accordingly. There are too many societal pressures pushing people to continually consume, continually buy, to work their asses off so many hours a week that they can't enjoy what they have.... All the "investment advice" I ever received seemed to consist of working my ass off, stashing every penny into investment vehicles, and waiting until retirement to actually fucking enjoy my existence. And we wonder why half the country is on Prozac!

There were things I wanted to do with my life that, frankly, you're stupid to wait until retirement to do, because at that point you may no longer be able to do them. I deliberately chose NOT to buy a home because, for many years, I moved to damn often to make owning practical. Granted, this isn't the path everyone should take, but the path everyone was pushed to - buy a house, whether you can afford it or not! Put every penny into your 401(k), but fuck having easily accessible emergency funds! - wasn't the right choice for everyone, either. As all too many are now finding out.

There seems to be NO recognition that what makes sense at an income of 100K not only makes no sense at an income of 20K, it's impossible at that income. Not everyone values accumulation of wealth at all costs, indeed, there are endeavors such as scientific research where the person is likely to be poor or middle class all their life, yet society supposedly "values" such things. At least with lip service, the truth is, anyone make less that 6 digits is despised in this country by those in power.

How about this: I think it is wrong to pay people less than minimum wage and rely on you customers to make up the difference. Just because we have a long tradition of tipping in this country does not automatically make it the superior way of doing something.

So in liu of a logical argument against the practice based off the evidence, we are appealing to how you feel about the issue. "Following your gut" is not a valid way to go about things.

You do realize that in most other countries in the civilized world wait staff ARE paid at least minimum wage, tipping is rare, if it exists at all, and their world has not come to an end?

That's like saying "a single payer health system could work" is "just following your gut" when there is ample evidence from other nations that is can and does work.

Unemployment means "I don't have a paying job."

Underemployment means "I can't find a job that pays enough for my basic needs."

These are not the official definitions of the term, as relevant to discussing unemployment statistics

It is, however, the definition used by most non-economists - which is the vast majority of the population. It's fine if economists want to trade jargon across the table, but when you talk to normal people you can't just assume they know the jargon, too.

Other professions, such as medicine and law, recognize that laypeople don't know their jargon and yet manage to communicate (most of the time) with the masses. Why should economists be exempt? Yes, I can study the link you gave me, but that's not going to help the next ordinary Joe you talk to, is it? If you have to go around passing out a "cheat sheet" so people can understand what you're saying maybe you should rephrase your statements to standard English.

For that matter, professions dealing with people - medicine, law, engineering, etc - are held to ethical codes and profession conduct codes and, yes, licensing. Why should economists be exempt? Especially when there are economists setting government policies?

Setting the minimum wage is a balancing act between various real and opportunity costs that ripple across society in various ways. It is not a simple topic, so quite treating it like one.

So, you're saying it's OK to pay people a wage less than they can survive on? I mean, it's one thing if you're taking a job for a few extra bucks, but frankly, a society that thinks it's OK to condemn people to starvation wages for 40 hours a week of work because of "ramnifications" or "ripple effects" is, in my opinion, morally bankrupt. Of course, I'm sure you'll say that's not sound economic science or whatever, but then, I'm not an economist and I also think it's criminal that economists aren't held to moral and ethical standards like other professionals. Hell, fucking investment bankers have professional ethical codes (even if they don't always follow them), why the FUCK should economists be an exception?

How about we start with the concept that a "bonus" is supposed to be in addition to what you otherwise earn and should not be considered part of the salary you are entitled to by having the job in question? Losing a bonus is different than getting, say a 30-50% cut in your base salary, or your hours cut in half and your medical insurance dropped. Boo-fucking-hoo, Ossus lost a perk, he might have to cut back on his Starbuck's consumption. There is a massive difference between that a paycut.

So no, you'd rather throw a hissy fit then actually discuss the topic of unemployment vs low wages.

If you are depending on your bonus to pay your daily bills they you have made some fucked up financial choices. A bonus is NOT part of your base pay, it's not guaranteed, you're not entitled to it, it's supposed to be extra. Losing a bonus is NOT getting your wages cut. Why the fuck should I even attempt to discuss the matter with someone who apparently hasn't a goddamned clue what the difference is? My god, that's like telling someone who just got their leg cut off "Oh, yes, I understand pain, too - I have a hangnail." It's fucking offensive and I don't apologize for getting pissed off at someone who belittles the very real pain of other people

[Broomstick]

OK, I've been puzzling over this one a couple days.

A tax bill is a one-year affair - you pay it, and it's done, end of that particular obligation.

Debt lasts - a mortgage is a 20 year commitment, as just an example

Seems to me you're choosing between an ass-raping by the IRS vs. an ass-raping by the bank. If you're paying out money either way, whether you want to or not, why don't you just pay the damn taxes and be done with it, rather than assuming debt you don't want?

Uh, debt can finance your investments in yourself and future, so can return personal net gains in a way within a reasonable standard of control. Taxes do not.

To expand with an example, you can take on a debt burden with say a student loan. That money allows you to invest in yourself via education, which gives you a net gain in earning capacity later. Other examples would be small business loans letting you start your own company and see larger returns later. Debt can be used to better your standing. Taxes are just a solid chunk off.

Taxes pay for services you use every goddamned day, like sewers and clean water production and streetlights and roads. You do use all of the above, yes? Where do you think the money comes from for all that? Don't you think that has any economic value to YOU, personally, never mind any additional societal good that comes from it? Shouldn't you fucking pay for what you use?

Sure, let's abolish those evil taxes that just "steal" your money - then you can live without roads, sewer, water, public utilities, and, oh yes, police and fire protection (I suppose if your house catches fire you can try to convince your neighbors to start a bucket brigade before you lose everything).

Explain to me, in simple English, why you should NOT be paying for these services you use every goddamned day you live in civilization? Explain to me how they aren't of value.

When did people fucking forget why we have taxes, and where the money comes from for basic shit we use all the time?

What the fuck does an education get you if, because no one is paying taxes anymore, you can't get to work because the roads have fallen to shit?

I understand that you don't like paying taxes. I don't either. But I understand WHY we have them, even as I oppose government waste and corruption and all that other Bad Stuff. You know what? I don't like brushing my teeth, either, but I do it anyway because I know it's good for me in the long run. Ditto for taxes - if I want public stuff like good roads and a fireman to haul my ass out of a burning building I'll put up with them.

That's why I had the audacity to suggest that, rather than take on "insane" debt loads, you just pay some of the fucking taxes. Compared to other Western nations the US had very low taxes, however much we bitch about them. It's fucking greed, the "I got mine fuck you" mindset, at work here. That's why our infrastructure is falling to shit. Everyone wants to use it, but no one wants to pay for it.

Perhaps the trend of selling off roads and bridges to foreign interests will wind up with a net benefit when those foreigners raise rates to pay for proper upkeep, even as the greedy fucks howl about the unfairness of it all. If you use the damn roads you have to, at some point, pay for them. It's either tolls or taxes.

[Broomstick]

Speaking of the wage gap, it has been steadily widening for 30 years, right through periods when virtually all the economists seemed to agree that the economy was in great shape. That's another example of what I'm talking about.

You keep acting as if it is expected for economists to preach on the basis of research and their intellectual authority on the social system. Some people - economists included - are not bothered by social inequity as much as you are

But maybe they SHOULD be bothered by it more...

How would we extend this to economists? Create professional organizations and mandate that they incorporate the ethics of wealth redistribution into their standards?

Why is it always the evil "wealth distribution" thing that comes up? How about "pay for what you use"? Corporations want tax breaks, which fucks up school funding, then the corporations complain they can't get educated workers. Well, duh! - if corporations want employees who can read and write maybe they should pay the taxes that support the fucking schools! But, oh no, make someone else pay for all that, and the corps can get it for free! Except, eventually, there is no "someone else".

Should economists who advise CEOs who lay off workers be guilty of violation of ethics because their advice resulted in harm to people's livelihoods?

Sometimes, you have to have lay-offs. However, if those people don't get work/incomes, there will be fewer people buying shit and thus less profits for CEO's. There is no direct benefit, but there is a societal benefit to helping workers retrain, find new jobs, etc. that benefit all economic enterprises. Of course, that requires a CEO to understand the concept of "societal good" rather than adopt a "I got mine fuck you" attitude

If they advise deregulation and then it arguably causes greater failures and losses, should they been stripped of license?

Held accountable in SOME way - if a doctor loses a patient during surgery he has to attend a meeting about the matter, and if he is found to have made an error yes, he can be stripped of his license. If economists give bad advice they should be called on the carpet and, if circumstances warrant, punished.

Every other profession I can think of off-hand has consequences for bad outcomes, why should economics be different?

See above. I don't see how you could get what you want without holding companies and organizations legally culpable for hiring or consulting economists without licensing, and forcibly incorporating social democratic ethical principles into their standards.

I don't see why you object to that.

Companies can be held liable for, say, hiring a doctor or lawyer without proper credentials. If I misrepresent my education and a company hires me without double checking, yes, they can be held liable if my uneduated fuck up harms someone. Why should economists be any different?

[Vendetta]

But maybe they SHOULD be bothered by it more...

A lot of people should be bothered more by social inequality, but unless they ever end up with the shitty end of the stick themselves, they won't be.

[Broomstick]

Agreed.

One of the current tragedies of the present day US is just how many people who were convinced they would never end up on the short end of the stick are now eating in soup kitchens and going "Holy fuck!"

I feel sorry for those people, I really do. They are totally unequipped to deal with a bout of poverty. They do suffer.

[Ender]

Yes. However, my and my family's survival is MY first priority, not what fast-food workers in California are making.

And yet right down the page you bitch about others not being bothered.

I went after him because of the way he continually dismisses the negative aspects of the economy, with absolutely NO recognition that they represent suffering live human beings.

So you are engaged in strawmanning and vendetta posting then. What he said was absolutely correct, and you used it as another reason to flip your shit and take out your personal problems on the rest of us here.

You do realize that in most other countries in the civilized world wait staff ARE paid at least minimum wage, tipping is rare, if it exists at all, and their world has not come to an end?

That's like saying "a single payer health system could work" is "just following your gut" when there is ample evidence from other nations that is can and does work.

Good for the rest of the world. We are discussing American policies here, and thus use evidence drawn upon from America. Start presenting that evidence.

It is, however, the definition used by most non-economists - which is the vast majority of the population. It's fine if economists want to trade jargon across the table, but when you talk to normal people you can't just assume they know the jargon, too.

Other professions, such as medicine and law, recognize that laypeople don't know their jargon and yet manage to communicate (most of the time) with the masses. Why should economists be exempt? Yes, I can study the link you gave me, but that's not going to help the next ordinary Joe you talk to, is it? If you have to go around passing out a "cheat sheet" so people can understand what you're saying maybe you should rephrase your statements to standard English.

"weh weh weh, I don't want to have to know what I am talking about!"

This is really simple you stupid bitch: If you want to discuss economics, with economists, like you chose to do, know the fucking terms. This forum shows zero patience for those who try to bullshit their way around discussing physics, or any other topic, I see no reason we should give you a special pass.

For that matter, professions dealing with people - medicine, law, engineering, etc - are held to ethical codes and profession conduct codes and, yes, licensing. Why should economists be exempt? Especially when there are economists setting government policies?

when in doubt, try and drag the argument off on a different track. Bite me, I'm not playing that game.

So, you're saying it's OK to pay people a wage less than they can survive on? I mean, it's one thing if you're taking a job for a few extra bucks, but frankly, a society that thinks it's OK to condemn people to starvation wages for 40 hours a week of work because of "ramnifications" or "ripple effects" is, in my opinion, morally bankrupt. Of course, I'm sure you'll say that's not sound economic science or whatever, but then, I'm not an economist and I also think it's criminal that economists aren't held to moral and ethical standards like other professionals. Hell, fucking investment bankers have professional ethical codes (even if they don't always follow them), why the FUCK should economists be an exception?

So rather then present an argument, you decide to straw man the fuck out of me.

If you are depending on your bonus to pay your daily bills they you have made some fucked up financial choices. A bonus is NOT part of your base pay, it's not guaranteed, you're not entitled to it, it's supposed to be extra. Losing a bonus is NOT getting your wages cut. Why the fuck should I even attempt to discuss the matter with someone who apparently hasn't a goddamned clue what the difference is? My god, that's like telling someone who just got their leg cut off "Oh, yes, I understand pain, too - I have a hangnail." It's fucking offensive and I don't apologize for getting pissed off at someone who belittles the very real pain of other people

Yep, keep throwing a god damned fit rather then discussing the topic at hand.

[Ender]

Taxes pay for services you use every goddamned day, like sewers and clean water production and streetlights and roads. You do use all of the above, yes? Where do you think the money comes from for all that? Don't you think that has any economic value to YOU, personally, never mind any additional societal good that comes from it? Shouldn't you fucking pay for what you use?

Sure, let's abolish those evil taxes that just "steal" your money - then you can live without roads, sewer, water, public utilities, and, oh yes, police and fire protection (I suppose if your house catches fire you can try to convince your neighbors to start a bucket brigade before you lose everything).

Explain to me, in simple English, why you should NOT be paying for these services you use every goddamned day you live in civilization? Explain to me how they aren't of value.

When did people fucking forget why we have taxes, and where the money comes from for basic shit we use all the time?

What the fuck does an education get you if, because no one is paying taxes anymore, you can't get to work because the roads have fallen to shit?

I understand that you don't like paying taxes. I don't either. But I understand WHY we have them, even as I oppose government waste and corruption and all that other Bad Stuff. You know what? I don't like brushing my teeth, either, but I do it anyway because I know it's good for me in the long run. Ditto for taxes - if I want public stuff like good roads and a fireman to haul my ass out of a burning building I'll put up with them.

That's why I had the audacity to suggest that, rather than take on "insane" debt loads, you just pay some of the fucking taxes. Compared to other Western nations the US had very low taxes, however much we bitch about them. It's fucking greed, the "I got mine fuck you" mindset, at work here. That's why our infrastructure is falling to shit. Everyone wants to use it, but no one wants to pay for it.

Perhaps the trend of selling off roads and bridges to foreign interests will wind up with a net benefit when those foreigners raise rates to pay for proper upkeep, even as the greedy fucks howl about the unfairness of it all. If you use the damn roads you have to, at some point, pay for them. It's either tolls or taxes.

And another rant from the stupid bitch showing how she doesn't know her head from her ass, but isn't going to let that stop her. The important thing is that she gets to rant and scream, fuck it if it has nothing to do with the topic. You showed, and still show, ZERO fucking understanding about the difference between debt and taxes. It was politely explained to you, with examples. You ignore that and rant and rave, because dammit, you are ignorant, and proud of it!


Fuck along now.

[Keevan_Colton]

Actually, Broom has got it pretty neatly summed up with the "Me me me" nature of it. "So long as I have mine, fuck 'em", while taxes is an investment in society in general. Debt is an investment in yourself...I believe Mike's had a few things to say on the selfish four year old mentality of a lot of american politics...seems it's a matter in economics too....

My, me, mine...

[Ender]

Actually, Broom has got it pretty neatly summed up with the "Me me me" nature of it. "So long as I have mine, fuck 'em", while taxes is an investment in society in general. Debt is an investment in yourself...I believe Mike's had a few things to say on the selfish four year old mentality of a lot of american politics...seems it's a matter in economics too....

My, me, mine...

Broom equated them stating that is was an "ass-raping either way". That misconception was what was addressed and under discussion - there is a significant difference in how the economy will react to debt vs taxes. Her tangent there is thus only a straw man, regardless of whatever points there may be to it.

[Akhlut]

Broom equated them stating that is was an "ass-raping either way". That misconception was what was addressed and under discussion - there is a significant difference in how the economy will react to debt vs taxes. Her tangent there is thus only a straw man, regardless of whatever points there may be to it.

Can't an economy survive taxes rather easily, though? What with pretty much every known economy surviving them quite well and all, whereas a lot of debt over a large portion of the population causes a great deal of problems, right? If I'm not mistaken (and I may well be), wasn't part of the Great Depression, at least in the US, precipitated by the large lines of credit extended during the 10s and 20s, causing things like immense numbers of foreclosures and the like?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Agreed.

One of the current tragedies of the present day US is just how many people who were convinced they would never end up on the short end of the stick are now eating in soup kitchens and going "Holy fuck!"

I feel sorry for those people, I really do. They are totally unequipped to deal with a bout of poverty. They do suffer.

This is completely hilarious given the "stiff upper lip" speeches you gave me a year ago because I wistfully (not histrionically) emoted that my generation is going to have it worse than yours. What happened to that patented Broomy rugged individualism?

[Broomstick]

You do realize that in most other countries in the civilized world wait staff ARE paid at least minimum wage, tipping is rare, if it exists at all, and their world has not come to an end?

That's like saying "a single payer health system could work" is "just following your gut" when there is ample evidence from other nations that is can and does work.

Good for the rest of the world. We are discussing American policies here, and thus use evidence drawn upon from America. Start presenting that evidence.

The evidence is that a different system has been shown to work elsewhere, thus demonstrating that the US system is not the only viable way. Unless you somehow maintain that Americans are so fucking unique that nothing outside their borders could ever possibly apply to them.

It is, however, the definition used by most non-economists - which is the vast majority of the population. It's fine if economists want to trade jargon across the table, but when you talk to normal people you can't just assume they know the jargon, too.

Other professions, such as medicine and law, recognize that laypeople don't know their jargon and yet manage to communicate (most of the time) with the masses. Why should economists be exempt? Yes, I can study the link you gave me, but that's not going to help the next ordinary Joe you talk to, is it? If you have to go around passing out a "cheat sheet" so people can understand what you're saying maybe you should rephrase your statements to standard English.

"weh weh weh, I don't want to have to know what I am talking about!"

This is really simple you stupid bitch: If you want to discuss economics, with economists, like you chose to do, know the fucking terms.

Actually, I don't like to discuss economics with economists because they are arrogant assholes who hide the weakness of their profession behind jargon unintelligible to the average educated human being.

I did not see an "Only Economists Allowed to Post" on this thread. Therefore, I assumed that I was allowed to state my opinion without needing a master's in economics.

This forum shows zero patience for those who try to bullshit their way around discussing physics, or any other topic, I see no reason we should give you a special pass.

Why should we give economists a pass on ethics, professional standards, and licensing?

Yep, keep throwing a god damned fit rather then discussing the topic at hand.

Damn straight I'll throw a fit over my country going down the toilet because the fucking asswipes who give economic advice and set policy at the highest level are fucking everyone in the bottom 80% of the population. If you don't like my opinions then fuck you.

[Broomstick]

Agreed.

One of the current tragedies of the present day US is just how many people who were convinced they would never end up on the short end of the stick are now eating in soup kitchens and going "Holy fuck!"

I feel sorry for those people, I really do. They are totally unequipped to deal with a bout of poverty. They do suffer.

This is completely hilarious given the "stiff upper lip" speeches you gave me a year ago because I wistfully (not histrionically) emoted that my generation is going to have it worse than yours. What happened to that patented Broomy rugged individualism?

My "rugged individualism" has a lot to do with why my bills are still paid despite my personal economic downturn.

I wasn't specifying your generation in my "pity the clueless middle class" statement you quote here - that applies more to baby boomers and my generation. YOUR generation may well have a rough start, but there is always the possibility you will weather the storm and do quite well in the long term.

There are certainly a lot of people who ARE equipped to weather a bout of poverty, in any generation. There are always those who never consider the possibility, and are thus completely devastated if it happens.

[Big Orange]

The trouble is that the current economic system that Broomstick is raging against, Neoliberalism, seems to be sacrificing way too much for the sake of cheaper consumer goods and making the rich even more richer, while driving everything else into the ground. We are paying too much for energy bills partially because of dergulation, with Britain's civil utilities flogged to companies in the 1980s, and my dad is not earning as much as he did 10-15 years ago, while I seemingly find it to be an insurmountable chore to find proper work (with a good chunk of part time work going to foreign workers, because greedy employers can pay them less, but the Eastern European immigrants have clued up to the shitty economy and now moving back).

America's lack of reliable health service is due to Neoliberalism, but America wrapped up the Military-Industrial Complex in protectionism and poured a disproportionate amount of tax dollars into it.

[Ender]

The evidence is that a different system has been shown to work elsewhere, thus demonstrating that the US system is not the only viable way. Unless you somehow maintain that Americans are so fucking unique that nothing outside their borders could ever possibly apply to them.

Look you dumb cunt, if you want to claim that the assumption that tips do not make make up for the difference between server salaries and minimum wages, you need to start fucking showing it. "They do it different!" does not mean that our conclusions are wrong.

Actually, I don't like to discuss economics with economists because they are arrogant assholes who hide the weakness of their profession behind jargon unintelligible to the average educated human being.

Except that is EXACTLY what you did you lying sack of shit. You KNOW MoO is an economist, and by your own admission came in here to keep going after him on this topic.

I did not see an "Only Economists Allowed to Post" on this thread. Therefore, I assumed that I was allowed to state my opinion without needing a master's in economics.

Ok, so lie, then get defensive. Man, I'm having flashbacks to dealing with Kelly here.

Why should we give economists a pass on ethics, professional standards, and licensing?

So when it is pointed out you can't pour piss from a boot if the instructions are writen on the heel, you try and divert the topic again.

Damn straight I'll throw a fit over my country going down the toilet because the fucking asswipes who give economic advice and set policy at the highest level are fucking everyone in the bottom 80% of the population. If you don't like my opinions then fuck you.

Opinions? Ignorance, dishonesty, and screaming are not opinions. What's next, creationism is a valid alternative to evolution, fuck us if we don't like your "opinion"?

[Ender]

Broom equated them stating that is was an "ass-raping either way". That misconception was what was addressed and under discussion - there is a significant difference in how the economy will react to debt vs taxes. Her tangent there is thus only a straw man, regardless of whatever points there may be to it.

Can't an economy survive taxes rather easily, though? What with pretty much every known economy surviving them quite well and all, whereas a lot of debt over a large portion of the population causes a great deal of problems, right? If I'm not mistaken (and I may well be), wasn't part of the Great Depression, at least in the US, precipitated by the large lines of credit extended during the 10s and 20s, causing things like immense numbers of foreclosures and the like?

Without writing a thesis about it, both taxes and debt are tools in the economy. And like any tools, they can be used to enhance or hurt it. They are however, vastly different tools. Equating them as Broom did is like saying a screwdriver and a hammer are the same because they both make things go in things.

[Broomstick]

The evidence is that a different system has been shown to work elsewhere, thus demonstrating that the US system is not the only viable way. Unless you somehow maintain that Americans are so fucking unique that nothing outside their borders could ever possibly apply to them.

Look you dumb cunt, if you want to claim that the assumption that tips do not make make up for the difference between server salaries and minimum wages, you need to start fucking showing it. "They do it different!" does not mean that our conclusions are wrong.

So your argument comes down to "I don't care if they do it successfully and different, they're wrong and I'm right!"

I'm saying that an economy can successfully do away with tipping and pay its waitstaff minimum wage, and the proof is other nations have done this. Or do you dispute that other countries do it that way?

I find the system preferable to the current US system of forcing a businesses customers to subsidize and substandard wage. I find the minimum wage/no tipping standard SUPERIOR because it gives waitstaff a level of economic security, which you don't get when a customer having a bad day can simply elect to not tip you to be a pisser and thus force you to work for less than minimum wage for their benefit. That is a personal preference, you moron, and as such is not subject to proof. You are free to prefer a system that legally pays people sub-minimum wage. If you do so I am also free to consider you a reprehensible piece of slime. You are free to have your widdle fweelings hurt by my disapproval... or not.

Actually, I don't like to discuss economics with economists because they are arrogant assholes who hide the weakness of their profession behind jargon unintelligible to the average educated human being.

Except that is EXACTLY what you did you lying sack of shit. You KNOW MoO is an economist, and by your own admission came in here to keep going after him on this topic.

No, I came here to comment on thread started by Einy (who is not an economist) about an article in Rolling Stone. I am not required to be an economist to do that. For your reference, shithead, my first post in this thread was the third reply to the OP, well before MoO ever showed. In other words, I was in here before he was.

I did NOT come in here to "keep going after" MoO, he arrived on his own and I stated my opinion about his total lack of empathy for those suffering in the economy and his dismissive attitude towards those who don't benefit from the current system. The fact that this frequently occurs when we are both in the same thread is no proof of a vendetta, it's proof we have vastly different viewpoints.

Why the fuck are you arguing on his behalf anyway? Can't he speak for himself? Or maybe you just need someone to piss on today and I look like a target to you?

I did not see an "Only Economists Allowed to Post" on this thread. Therefore, I assumed that I was allowed to state my opinion without needing a master's in economics.

Ok, so lie, then get defensive. Man, I'm having flashbacks to dealing with Kelly here.

Who the fuck is "Kelly"?

There are some major problems with the US economy. Do you deny that, motherfucker?

I DON'T have to be an economist to post my opinion, nor do I need your permission fuckface. I am allowed to disagree with you.

Why should we give economists a pass on ethics, professional standards, and licensing?

So when it is pointed out you can't pour piss from a boot if the instructions are writen on the heel, you try and divert the topic again.

I'm not the only one who has asked that question.

I'll say it again - Why should economists be exempt from ethical and professional standards? You keep dodging that. Anything to avoid having to answer the question. God forbid you answer that question, quick, call the other person a bitch and cunt and anything else because the truth is that there IS NO REASON they shouldn't be held to ethical/professional standards... other than they haven't been and they're afraid they'll have to fucking take responsibility when they give bad advice.

Damn straight I'll throw a fit over my country going down the toilet because the fucking asswipes who give economic advice and set policy at the highest level are fucking everyone in the bottom 80% of the population. If you don't like my opinions then fuck you.

Opinions? Ignorance, dishonesty, and screaming are not opinions.

Right. If someone disagrees with you they're a liar, dishonest, and ignorant - you sound just like a Fundy who won't defend his stance (still haven't answered why you economists should be except from professional standards, have you?) but rather insist the other party is ignorant/insane/dishonest/whatever

[Broomstick]

Broom equated them stating that is was an "ass-raping either way". That misconception was what was addressed and under discussion - there is a significant difference in how the economy will react to debt vs taxes. Her tangent there is thus only a straw man, regardless of whatever points there may be to it.

Can't an economy survive taxes rather easily, though? What with pretty much every known economy surviving them quite well and all, whereas a lot of debt over a large portion of the population causes a great deal of problems, right? If I'm not mistaken (and I may well be), wasn't part of the Great Depression, at least in the US, precipitated by the large lines of credit extended during the 10s and 20s, causing things like immense numbers of foreclosures and the like?

Without writing a thesis about it, both taxes and debt are tools in the economy. And like any tools, they can be used to enhance or hurt it. They are however, vastly different tools. Equating them as Broom did is like saying a screwdriver and a hammer are the same because they both make things go in things.

No, shithead, I DID NOT say they were equal or interchangeable. I did say that if your choice was taking on "insane" levels of debt (the word used by the original person I quoted, which implies not manageable levels of debt but debt in excess of what a person might otherwise choose) or paying taxes, why not pay the taxes? That is NOT saying they are the same thing, that's asking why, if you have two alternatives you find unpleasant, you picked one over the other. How is that NOT a legitimate question?

Funny how the person I asked didn't jump down my throat - YOU did. Look, asshole, if you just plain don't like me I can handle it, but you're the one who gets fucking offended because I dare to ask someone else a question.

[Ender]

No, shithead, I DID NOT say they were equal or interchangeable. I did say that if your choice was taking on "insane" levels of debt (the word used by the original person I quoted, which implies not manageable levels of debt but debt in excess of what a person might otherwise choose) or paying taxes, why not pay the taxes? That is NOT saying they are the same thing, that's asking why, if you have two alternatives you find unpleasant, you picked one over the other. How is that NOT a legitimate question?

Your point was that both large debt and taxes were "an ass raping", so since we had to pay them out we might as well pay out larger taxes instead. This is equating them, and it is a gross concept error. Which I naively tried to correct on your part, but you are actively resisting learning even an online google search summary of facts.

Funny how the person I asked didn't jump down my throat - YOU did. Look, asshole, if you just plain don't like me I can handle it, but you're the one who gets fucking offended because I dare to ask someone else a question.

Providing a more concrete example, expanding upon an abstract point is jumping down your throat now? Keep up the histrionics.

So your argument comes down to "I don't care if they do it successfully and different, they're wrong and I'm right!"

I'm saying that an economy can successfully do away with tipping and pay its waitstaff minimum wage, and the proof is other nations have done this. Or do you dispute that other countries do it that way?

Fucking liar. MoO stated that most are not working for minimum wage. You responded that waitstaff makes less then minimum wage because we factor in tips. I asked you to confirm that assertion. You have utterly refused to do so. Whether or not we can do away with it is completely irrelevant. Prove your fucking claim that our policy of tipping to make up the difference is false like you stated.

I find the system preferable to the current US system of forcing a businesses customers to subsidize and substandard wage. I find the minimum wage/no tipping standard SUPERIOR because it gives waitstaff a level of economic security, which you don't get when a customer having a bad day can simply elect to not tip you to be a pisser and thus force you to work for less than minimum wage for their benefit. That is a personal preference, you moron, and as such is not subject to proof. You are free to prefer a system that legally pays people sub-minimum wage.

Yeah yeah yeah, keep repeating that. But without proof, which you still refuse to provide, it is nothing but your stupid ass's authority to back it up. Prove that tipping does not make up the difference.

If you do so I am also free to consider you a reprehensible piece of slime. You are free to have your widdle fweelings hurt by my disapproval... or not.

Oh that's so cute, you think you matter. Of course given that you get pissy when it is pointed out that there are more people then you in the world and we must think about them as well (the point that opened the post from MoO that started this latest round of bullshit) I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But you don't. I really mean that. If after reading this you went and blew your brains out the only response you would get would be that in a few weeks we would notice that there was one less garish avatar on the forum.

No, I came here to comment on thread started by Einy (who is not an economist) about an article in Rolling Stone. I am not required to be an economist to do that.

I did NOT come in here to "keep going after" MoO, he arrived on his own and I stated my opinion about his total lack of empathy for those suffering in the economy and his dismissive attitude towards those who don't benefit from the current system.

Is that what we call "taking out your life's problems on the rest of the forum" now?

The fact that this frequently occurs when we are both in the same thread is no proof of a vendetta, it's proof we have vastly different viewpoints.

Ignorance is not a point of view.

Why the fuck are you arguing on his behalf anyway?

Because I naively tried to educate you rather then writing you off as a psychotic whore. I have since corrected that error.

Can't he speak for himself? Or maybe you just need someone to piss on today and I look like a target to you?

Bwahahahahaha! YOU are the one who keeps flipping their shit and venting against everyone here. You did it in this thread, you did it repeatedly in the Ossetia thread, and I'm sure if I did a search for your posts I can find a number of others where you did the same. Protip: The operative part of "your problems" is the word "your"

Who the fuck is "Kelly"?

The last crazy lying drama queen we had to suffer through.

There are some major problems with the US economy. Do you deny that, motherfucker?

I DON'T have to be an economist to post my opinion, nor do I need your permission fuckface. I am allowed to disagree with you.

You don't agree or disagree, to do that you would have to know something to make an informed decision. As near as I can tell this is just another opportunity for you to show your ass to us and burn off some of the frustration in your real life, and damn if you aren't all over that like flies on a turd.

I'm not the only one who has asked that question.

No, you've just leapt onto that rather than address any of the questions that were put forth to you.

I'll say it again - Why should economists be exempt from ethical and professional standards? You keep dodging that. Anything to avoid having to answer the question. God forbid you answer that question, quick, call the other person a bitch and cunt and anything else because the truth is that there IS NO REASON they shouldn't be held to ethical/professional standards... other than they haven't been and they're afraid they'll have to fucking take responsibility when they give bad advice.

I'll say it again too: You are a crazy bitch who has been repeatedly using this place as her emotional punching bag and treating her ignorance as strength.

By the way, the hypocrisy of complaining about the use of foul language when you are consistently the first to go negative (e.g. screeching about MoO being a monster) and claiming that I won't address your point (when IP has done so for me) while you go out of your way to ignore everything brought against you is sweet as sugar.

Right. If someone disagrees with you they're a liar, dishonest, and ignorant - you sound just like a Fundy who won't defend his stance (still haven't answered why you economists should be except from professional standards, have you?) but rather insist the other party is ignorant/insane/dishonest/whatever

And more projectionism for you. I haven't answered a point you threw up as a red herring in the last posts? You are yet to answer any of the points put forth against you in the 4 pages of this thread:

* That your hypocritical self-centered-ness aside, you are not the world and statements that most are not doing minimum wage jobs is a valid statement
*That you keep repeating anti-intellectual arguments to defend your "viewpoint"
*To prove that tips do not make up for the difference in base wages for service staff
*That you do not know the meaning of terms you are asserting
*To present evidence as to the implications of altering the minimum wage to differing levels so we can ascertain the benefit of altering it
*To discuss the difference between low wages and unemployment
*The absurdity of attacking the character of people based off stereotypes.

I'm done with your useless ass. Unlike you, I don't have oodles of free time to kill, so going round and round with your crazy ass is far more of a drain. I'm sure you will think of this is some kind of victory, and hey, that's cool, you clearly need some sort of validation in your life. Enjoy your "internet win".

[Broomstick]

Your point was that both large debt and taxes were "an ass raping", so since we had to pay them out we might as well pay out larger taxes instead. This is equating them, and it is a gross concept error.

I asked "why pay one over the other?" If ask you "why choose apple pie over blueberry" that's NOT equating them, that's asking why you made that choice. They're both pies, they're both dessert, yes, but they aren't the same thing. I asked why choose one over the other. YOU chose to attack me for daring to ask a question.

Funny how the person I asked didn't jump down my throat - YOU did. Look, asshole, if you just plain don't like me I can handle it, but you're the one who gets fucking offended because I dare to ask someone else a question.

Providing a more concrete example, expanding upon an abstract point is jumping down your throat now? Keep up the histrionics.

Calling me a "hysterical" bitch or whore whatever is jumping down my throat, which is what you've been doing for several posts.

Not to mention accusing me of entering this thread on a vendetta against MoO which the facts show is untrue as I entered this thread many posts before he did. But you can't admit you made that error, Mr. Perfect Economist. Don't let a fact get in the way of your reality.

So your argument comes down to "I don't care if they do it successfully and different, they're wrong and I'm right!"

I'm saying that an economy can successfully do away with tipping and pay its waitstaff minimum wage, and the proof is other nations have done this. Or do you dispute that other countries do it that way?

Fucking liar. MoO stated that most are not working for minimum wage. You responded that waitstaff makes less then minimum wage because we factor in tips.

No, fucker, I stated their employer could pay them less than minimum wage, relying on the customer to make up the difference. I guess your attention span doesn't last past the first half of a sentence. I was referring to what their employer paid.

Whether or not we can do away with it is completely irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant? An alternate system works elsewhere, so there can be no argument that other system isn't viable. The only reason we still permit employers to legally pay waitstaff sub-minimum wage is tradition.

Prove your fucking claim that our policy of tipping to make up the difference is false like you stated.

I never said they couldn't make up the difference, I said it was a piss-poor policy to rely on the customer to make up the difference.

But without proof, which you still refuse to provide, it is nothing but your stupid ass's authority to back it up. Prove that tipping does not make up the difference.

I never contended tipping couldn't make up the difference, but that it was unreliable. One bastard customer could decide not to tip at all, even for excellent service, thereby forcing an excellent employee to work for less than minimum wage for that period of time. Yes, I have an issue with that. If restaurant owners had to pay minimum wage to waitstaff (something just about everyone else seems to manage to do without going out of business) they would be guaranteed at least the minimum, always, and tipping would be a bonus on top of that. Like it is elsewhere.

If you do so I am also free to consider you a reprehensible piece of slime. You are free to have your widdle fweelings hurt by my disapproval... or not.

Oh that's so cute, you think you matter. Of course given that you get pissy when it is pointed out that there are more people then you in the world and we must think about them as well (the point that opened the post from MoO that started this latest round of bullshit) I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But you don't. I really mean that. If after reading this you went and blew your brains out the only response you would get would be that in a few weeks we would notice that there was one less garish avatar on the forum.

Oh, now you're attacking my AVATAR? You ran out of creative ways to refer to female genitalia and now you're going after a PICTURE? That is just too pathetically funny.

No, I came here to comment on thread started by Einy (who is not an economist) about an article in Rolling Stone. I am not required to be an economist to do that.

I did NOT come in here to "keep going after" MoO, he arrived on his own and I stated my opinion about his total lack of empathy for those suffering in the economy and his dismissive attitude towards those who don't benefit from the current system.

Is that what we call "taking out your life's problems on the rest of the forum" now?

Ah, so you can't admit you were wrong about my reason for entering this forum. I was here well before MoO, and I was commenting on the article contents. It's a fact. Go back and look at the first page. You are accusing of something clearly untrue, you dishonest cockgobbler.

The fact that this frequently occurs when we are both in the same thread is no proof of a vendetta, it's proof we have vastly different viewpoints.

Ignorance is not a point of view.

Right, we should all kowtow and kiss your ass because you're an economist, we get that. Frankly, I think you serve less purpose in this world than an ambulance chasing lawyer. Who, by the way, is subject to ethical and professional standards you are not, and can be disciplined for giving bad professional advice - something your profession apparently wants immunity from. I don't have to be an economist to find something wrong with that.

Why the fuck are you arguing on his behalf anyway?

Because I naively tried to educate you rather then writing you off as a psychotic whore. I have since corrected that error.

See, it's the "psychotic whore" part that could be construed as a personal attack.

Tell me, Mr. Economist, what are your qualifications for calling me "psychotic"? Do you have any education, or, preferably, certification in a psychological or psychiatric field? What are you qualifications to diagnose another person? If you don't have any, you're speaking out of ignorance and should shut the fuck up. So please state your credentials.

Who the fuck is "Kelly"?

The last crazy lying drama queen we had to suffer through.

Never heard of the person. Tell me, is it something about yourself, perhaps, that triggers expressions of violent disgust and contempt? If everyone you meet vomits it might be that YOU'RE the one making them ill and not some flu bug.

There are some major problems with the US economy. Do you deny that, motherfucker?

I DON'T have to be an economist to post my opinion, nor do I need your permission fuckface. I am allowed to disagree with you.

You don't agree or disagree, to do that you would have to know something to make an informed decision.

So you won't answer a questiong directed at you - what piece of shit you are. I asked whether or not you agreed there were major problems with the US economy. That's a direct question. You once again dodge answering anything. YOU'RE the one who supposedly has an "informed" brain, yet you won't answer a simple question.

Here they are again:

1) Why should economists be exempt from professional and ethical standards and licensing?

2) Are there or are there not major problems with the US economy?

So, Mr. Expert, why don't you answer? Particularly #1, which has been asked by more than just me.

I'll say it again - Why should economists be exempt from ethical and professional standards? You keep dodging that. Anything to avoid having to answer the question. God forbid you answer that question, quick, call the other person a bitch and cunt and anything else because the truth is that there IS NO REASON they shouldn't be held to ethical/professional standards... other than they haven't been and they're afraid they'll have to fucking take responsibility when they give bad advice.

I'll say it again too: You are a crazy bitch who has been repeatedly using this place as her emotional punching bag and treating her ignorance as strength.

Your reply has nothing to do with the question I asked. Why won't you answer that question?

I realize that you didn't like the answers I gave to your questions, but at least I referenced the question in my answer. You, however, responded with nothing more than an accusation I'm crazy. Why do you react so negatively to a question regarding your profession and ethics.

Right. If someone disagrees with you they're a liar, dishonest, and ignorant - you sound just like a Fundy who won't defend his stance (still haven't answered why you economists should be except from professional standards, have you?) but rather insist the other party is ignorant/insane/dishonest/whatever

And more projectionism for you. I haven't answered a point you threw up as a red herring in the last posts? You are yet to answer any of the points put forth against you in the 4 pages of this thread:

* That your hypocritical self-centered-ness aside, you are not the world and statements that most are not doing minimum wage jobs is a valid statement

What are you saying here? Wipe the froth off your mouth. I never claimed most people in the world are working for minimum wage or less. I did say that many of the "new jobs" available around my particular area were minimum wage, that's hardly "the world". It was also based on my personal experience in looking for work recently, in this area, not in some area of California or whatever.

*That you keep repeating anti-intellectual arguments to defend your "viewpoint"

This, from the man calling me a "psychotic whore". What was anti-intellectual? My statements about morality? I realize that morality is not scientifically testable, I never claimed it was. I find it immoral to pay someone less than minimum wage, as the employer of waitstaff are permitted to do, and rely on the customers to make up the differences in tips. Whether or not those tips DO make up the difference is irrelevant for the point I'm discussing, that it's wrong that employers get to pay waitstaff less than the minimum. That's a moral judgment, not an assessment of the amont of take-home pay.

*To prove that tips do not make up for the difference in base wages for service staff

Since my point was NEVER about whether or not the tips "make up" the difference I didn't see the point. My point was that it was wrong to allow employers an exception to the standard minimum wage for waitstaff. If waitstaff make up the difference elsewhere, bully for them, but I wasn't talking about their take home pay, I was talking about their employers forcing customers to subsidize the paycheck of underpaid (my minimum wage standards) employees.

*That you do not know the meaning of terms you are asserting

I have never claimed to be an economist nor to have more than a layman's understanding of the terms involved. Thus, I do not know your profession's jargon.

*To present evidence as to the implications of altering the minimum wage to differing levels so we can ascertain the benefit of altering it

As I am not an economist I am not qualified to discuss that - it would be like asking me to discuss the merits of various treatments for a form of cancer.

I can, however, point out that other countries do not use the "pay waitstaff less than minimum wage and expect them to make it up in tips" method and yet seem to still have a functioning economy and restaurants with waitstaff. So, obviously, this CAN work. Which was my point. More detailed analysis of the effects on the economy overall is not something I can undertake, yet you seem to require it of me. Tell me, do you often set people up to fail?

*To discuss the difference between low wages and unemployment

I thought we took care of that already.

*The absurdity of attacking the character of people based off stereotypes.

Huh? Where and when did that come up in this thread? Could you please reference the relevant posts?

Now, I've answered your questions - admittedly, not as thoroughly as an economist but I did my "hysterical whore" best - so you answer mine.

I'm done with your useless ass.

Oh, thank Og for that! I need it back so I can take my morning shit! I was wondering where my ass had gone to, so you were the one using it?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I would add to this debate that the sane parts of the country mandate minimum wage + tips, such as Washington State and California. The US Congress at one point however tried to ban this enlightened humanitarianism, and force those states to allow restaurants to underpay their workers. Having previously relied on the kindness of a woman who was working such a job in Illinois part time (couldn't get full time work in a restaurant, nobody can) and working cleaning houses the rest of the time, and using that money, with the support of her eldest daughter (a dear friend of mine), heavily burdened with college debt but working as a book-binder downtown, to take care of two teenaged daughters with mental problems who couldn't reliably work. I was allowed to live in their garage (yes, despite the climate extremes of the area--I just stayed inside and moved very little when it was in the 90's or more) when I had no home myself, despite their socio-economic position being so precarious, they were so generous as to provide an old lounger and a garage and a few blankets for me, and food, when in the end I could only contribute a couple hundred dollars to the household, all told, in a period of five months that I was there.

And these people, so full of heart and kindness, exemplified the very burning reality of the situation of the poor in this country. College education, not being free, crippled the eldest daughter who could have otherwise led them out of it with her newly improved educational status; and the sheer exhaustion of the completely random shifts and then driving for hours, to work a couple hours cleaning homes, placed such a burden on my friend's mother that the house, when I arrived (during the periods when I was not quite ill, I cleaned aggressively), was filthy. But this wasn't because they were low-class trash. It was because they came home so exhausted from work and from multi-hour commutes that they could not bear a moment's exertion to do the rest of the work. And they ate junk because they had nothing else.

And yet what they had, they shared with me without reservation, and only expected from me the barest of what I could manage. If for nothing else, the purpose of my life and of my going into engineering is to have the money available not so that I can do anything beyond the necessities with it myself, but so that I can pay back the infinite kindness of such people to me. As for the people who allow them no hope of escape? (One nice thing, for instance, would be state-run free universities with extremely strict entrance exams, like the French Ecole system. It would at least be meritocratic--but of course it would require huge investment in public education, in particular to make sure everyone was fully prepared for the entrance exams. And that won't happen).

Well, if you ever do throw a revolution, let me. I've always been a practical girl; if I found myself in the USSA tomorrow I'd ignore the banal considerations of ideology, reinvent myself with a revolutionary name and join the CHEKA and start shooting people. God knows it could only improve things no matter what you think of the country or its politics or the politics behind such a thing.

[Adrian Laguna]

One nice thing, for instance, would be state-run free universities with extremely strict entrance exams, like the French Ecole system.

Venezuela has something like that. This is may no longer be true, but at least back in the day the state run universities were so good that Venezuelan graduates usually had no problem getting jobs in international corporations or entering top-line graduate programs abroad, especially in fields like engineering, chemistry, and biology. That's one of the main reasons why Procter & Gamble put its Latin American headquarters in Caracas.