Sheriff Joe
DA
You sure know how to piss people off.
Essential Economics for Politicians
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
-
- Tags
- finance too
Sheriff Joe
DA
I can't wait until Trump digs into and terminates the Iranian nuke deal./cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/58132815/Screen_Shot_2017_12_28_at_1.47.15_PM.1514484178.png)
That's what Liberal/Progressive/Socialists do after they give their word they won't......
I guess the Chinese are just following the United States Democrats Lead !
Yes... and the money we will save !!!
I really wonder how much money was on those
undocumented flights out of Tehran Airport today....
Bruddah IZ
DA
Ignorance has that effect on those that choose to be pissed off.
Sheriff Joe
DA
The bigger question is how much the Kenyan skimmed off the top.
What other reason is there for cash?
Hüsker Dü
DA
You certainly are a gullible rube.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Your hate for the common man is showing again.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Hate is a waste of time.
Its a new year, rat.
Love the new attitude.
Bruddah IZ
DA
You certainly are a gullible rube.
Bruddah IZ
DA
2018's New Minimum Wages Come with a Cost
At best, the minimum wage transfers money from one group to another with no net gain.
https://fee.org/articles/2018s-new-minimum-wages-come-with-a-cost/
It All Has to Come from Somewhere
The minimum wage supporters see almost endless benefits despite the economic destruction that characterizes minimum wage laws. They see miracles of multiplying prosperity, increased income, and more jobs coming from minimum wage hikes, a form of economic magic enacted in state capitals, by city councils, and the federal government. But once we trace the long-term effects of such public policy on all groups in the economy, and analyze both what is seen and what is unseen, we should easily understand that the minimum wage cannot, and will not, have overall positive effects. At best it can only transfer income from one group (business owners like Mrs. Johnson above and/or their customers in the form of higher prices) to another group (low-skilled, limited-experienced workers), but with no net gain.
At best, the minimum wage transfers money from one group to another with no net gain.
https://fee.org/articles/2018s-new-minimum-wages-come-with-a-cost/
It All Has to Come from Somewhere
The minimum wage supporters see almost endless benefits despite the economic destruction that characterizes minimum wage laws. They see miracles of multiplying prosperity, increased income, and more jobs coming from minimum wage hikes, a form of economic magic enacted in state capitals, by city councils, and the federal government. But once we trace the long-term effects of such public policy on all groups in the economy, and analyze both what is seen and what is unseen, we should easily understand that the minimum wage cannot, and will not, have overall positive effects. At best it can only transfer income from one group (business owners like Mrs. Johnson above and/or their customers in the form of higher prices) to another group (low-skilled, limited-experienced workers), but with no net gain.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
Once, years ago, during a confidential discussion with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I asked how they could possibly vote for minimum-wage laws.
The answer I got was that members of the Black Caucus were part of a political coalition and, as such, they were expected to vote for things that other members of that coalition wanted, such as minimum-wage laws, in order that other members of the coalition would vote for things that the Black Caucus wanted.
When I asked what could the black members of Congress possibly get in return for supporting minimum-wage laws that would be worth sacrificing whole generations of young blacks to huge rates of unemployment, the discussion quickly ended. I may have been vehement when I asked that question.
The same question could be asked of black public officials in general, including President Obama, who have taken the side of the teachers’ unions, who oppose vouchers or charter schools that allow black parents (among others) to take their children out of failing public schools.-Sowell
https://nypost.com/2013/09/17/why-racists-love-the-minimum-wage-laws/
The answer I got was that members of the Black Caucus were part of a political coalition and, as such, they were expected to vote for things that other members of that coalition wanted, such as minimum-wage laws, in order that other members of the coalition would vote for things that the Black Caucus wanted.
When I asked what could the black members of Congress possibly get in return for supporting minimum-wage laws that would be worth sacrificing whole generations of young blacks to huge rates of unemployment, the discussion quickly ended. I may have been vehement when I asked that question.
The same question could be asked of black public officials in general, including President Obama, who have taken the side of the teachers’ unions, who oppose vouchers or charter schools that allow black parents (among others) to take their children out of failing public schools.-Sowell
https://nypost.com/2013/09/17/why-racists-love-the-minimum-wage-laws/
Bruddah IZ
DA
Knowing Their Harm, Politicians Still Push for Minimum Wages
We have minimum wage hikes for the same reason we have rent control, protectionism, and thousands of other destructive policies.
https://fee.org/articles/knowing-their-harm-politicians-still-push-for-minimum-wages/
So Why Raise the Minimum Wage?
With four studies produced by the Ontario government showing negative employment effects of raising the minimum wage without any reduction in poverty, why are politicians pushing forward with the policy?
The answer as to why we have minimum wage hikes is the same as to why we have rent control, and protectionism, and thousands of other destructive government policies – polls show raising the minimum wage is a political winner.
We have minimum wage hikes for the same reason we have rent control, protectionism, and thousands of other destructive policies.
https://fee.org/articles/knowing-their-harm-politicians-still-push-for-minimum-wages/
So Why Raise the Minimum Wage?
With four studies produced by the Ontario government showing negative employment effects of raising the minimum wage without any reduction in poverty, why are politicians pushing forward with the policy?
The answer as to why we have minimum wage hikes is the same as to why we have rent control, and protectionism, and thousands of other destructive government policies – polls show raising the minimum wage is a political winner.
Bruddah IZ
DA
After Studying Basic Economics, Mayor Vetoes Minimum Wage Increase
Finally! An economics story with a happy ending, at least for now.
https://fee.org/articles/after-studying-basic-economics-mayor-vetoes-minimum-wage-increase/
A Complete 180
Last week, Baltimore’s new Democratic Mayor, Catherine Pugh, surprised her constituents by changing her position on the issue of raising the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour.
This came as a shock to those who had previously supported her during her mayoral run when she not only vocally promised to support the legislation, but also said in writing on a union questionnaire that, "I am aware of the current initiative to raise the minimum wage in the City Council to $15 per hour and when it reaches my desk I will sign it."
However, after she was elected into office and when the minimum legislation did reach the new Baltimore Mayor’s desk, instead of signing the legislation, Mayor Pugh used her power to veto it!
Pugh, who is only four months into her term as mayor, did what many mayors have not taken the time, nor had the courage to do: she actually researched the economic policies set to be implemented in the legislation, and the potential harm these policies could cause in Baltimore.
As a result of what she learned, Pugh decided she could no longer in good conscience support or sign the legislation when the economic repercussions were potentially dangerous enough to harm her entire city.
Finally! An economics story with a happy ending, at least for now.
https://fee.org/articles/after-studying-basic-economics-mayor-vetoes-minimum-wage-increase/
A Complete 180
Last week, Baltimore’s new Democratic Mayor, Catherine Pugh, surprised her constituents by changing her position on the issue of raising the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour.
This came as a shock to those who had previously supported her during her mayoral run when she not only vocally promised to support the legislation, but also said in writing on a union questionnaire that, "I am aware of the current initiative to raise the minimum wage in the City Council to $15 per hour and when it reaches my desk I will sign it."
However, after she was elected into office and when the minimum legislation did reach the new Baltimore Mayor’s desk, instead of signing the legislation, Mayor Pugh used her power to veto it!
Pugh, who is only four months into her term as mayor, did what many mayors have not taken the time, nor had the courage to do: she actually researched the economic policies set to be implemented in the legislation, and the potential harm these policies could cause in Baltimore.
As a result of what she learned, Pugh decided she could no longer in good conscience support or sign the legislation when the economic repercussions were potentially dangerous enough to harm her entire city.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Did I hurt your overly-sensitive little feelings? No wonder they kicked you off the islands . . . snowflakes don't last long in a tough environment like that.
Bruddah IZ
DA
I hit the ignore button and then left the islands on a big metal canoe.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
Warren Buffett Won a Decade-Old $1M Bet
Now, the ten-year betting period is officially over.
In 2007, Warren Buffett challenged finance professionals in the hedge fund industry to accept a bet that Buffett described in his 2016 letter to shareholders of Berkshire-Hathaway (see p. 21-21):
In Berkshire’s 2005 annual report, I argued that active investment management by professionals – in aggregate – would over a period of years underperform the returns achieved by rank amateurs who simply sat still. I explained that the massive fees levied by a variety of “helpers” would leave their clients – again in aggregate – worse off than if the amateurs simply invested in an unmanaged low-cost index fund.
Subsequently, I publicly offered to wager $500,000 that no investment pro could select a set of at least five hedge funds – wildly-popular and high-fee investing vehicles – that would over an extended period match the performance of an unmanaged S&P-500 index fund charging only token fees. I suggested a ten-year bet and named a low-cost Vanguard S&P fund as my contender. I then sat back and waited expectantly for a parade of fund managers – who could include their own fund as one of the five – to come forth and defend their occupation. After all, these managers urged others to bet billions on their abilities. Why should they fear putting a little of their own money on the line?
Specifically, Buffett offered to bet that over a ten-year period from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2017, the S&P 500 index would outperform a portfolio of hedge funds when performance is measured on a basis net of fees, costs, and all expenses. Hedge fund manager Ted Seides of Protégé Partners accepted Buffett’s bet and he identified five hedge funds that the predicted would out-perform the S&P 500 index over ten years.
Now, the ten-year betting period is officially over.
In 2007, Warren Buffett challenged finance professionals in the hedge fund industry to accept a bet that Buffett described in his 2016 letter to shareholders of Berkshire-Hathaway (see p. 21-21):
In Berkshire’s 2005 annual report, I argued that active investment management by professionals – in aggregate – would over a period of years underperform the returns achieved by rank amateurs who simply sat still. I explained that the massive fees levied by a variety of “helpers” would leave their clients – again in aggregate – worse off than if the amateurs simply invested in an unmanaged low-cost index fund.
Subsequently, I publicly offered to wager $500,000 that no investment pro could select a set of at least five hedge funds – wildly-popular and high-fee investing vehicles – that would over an extended period match the performance of an unmanaged S&P-500 index fund charging only token fees. I suggested a ten-year bet and named a low-cost Vanguard S&P fund as my contender. I then sat back and waited expectantly for a parade of fund managers – who could include their own fund as one of the five – to come forth and defend their occupation. After all, these managers urged others to bet billions on their abilities. Why should they fear putting a little of their own money on the line?
Specifically, Buffett offered to bet that over a ten-year period from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2017, the S&P 500 index would outperform a portfolio of hedge funds when performance is measured on a basis net of fees, costs, and all expenses. Hedge fund manager Ted Seides of Protégé Partners accepted Buffett’s bet and he identified five hedge funds that the predicted would out-perform the S&P 500 index over ten years.
Bruddah IZ
DA
How Legal Activism Stopped the Market from Abolishing Segregation
The erroneous holding of Plessy permitted states to require separate facilities in public accommodations and other public institutions, such as schools. Afterward the language of “separate but equal” became a widespread justification for discriminatory practices. Justice Harlan stated that the Constitution was “colorblind” and as such, could not permit legal distinctions based on race.
by James Devereaux
The Untold Story
What is often lost in the short history-class-version of this case is the effort by the company to comply and remove the segregation law. This may appear counterintuitive to some, but the market reality made segregation expensive. Looking at the requirements of the law (see above) makes it clear why securing separate accommodations, either by car or partition, is costly, and when you are in the business of selling seats, increasing the likelihood of empty seats works against that interest.
In the 1950’s the economist Gary Becker at the University of Chicago began to write about the economics of discrimination. His writing was contemporaneous to the Brown case which was decided in 1954. Becker’s book, titled The Economics of Discrimination and released in 1957, began a discussion on discrimination in the market which has yielded counterintuitive results in many instances.
Using economic assumptions to describe discriminatory behavior, Becker observed two basic features of discrimination. First, that discrimination may depress the wages and employment opportunities of those discriminated against and conversely that the discriminator may pay higher wages to avoid hiring a minority.
If for example, a white worker gets paid $2 more an hour than an African American worker, the employer is paying a $2 an hour penalty to maintain his discriminatory preferences. Over time, this is a difficult practice to maintain in a competitive environment. The result is parity when comparing equal, similarly situated people. Most employers or businesses are not willing to pay that penalty in the long run.
Since Becker’s book, others have also observed the impact of discrimination in markets and the tendency to move away from discrimination unless the base is sufficiently broad and the taste for discrimination is rather strong. However, in this scenario discrimination is highly likely to arise via democratic mechanisms as well, as it did in the South unless there is a constitutional constraint to prevent discriminatory democratic results.
The erroneous holding of Plessy permitted states to require separate facilities in public accommodations and other public institutions, such as schools. Afterward the language of “separate but equal” became a widespread justification for discriminatory practices. Justice Harlan stated that the Constitution was “colorblind” and as such, could not permit legal distinctions based on race.
by James Devereaux
The Untold Story
What is often lost in the short history-class-version of this case is the effort by the company to comply and remove the segregation law. This may appear counterintuitive to some, but the market reality made segregation expensive. Looking at the requirements of the law (see above) makes it clear why securing separate accommodations, either by car or partition, is costly, and when you are in the business of selling seats, increasing the likelihood of empty seats works against that interest.
In the 1950’s the economist Gary Becker at the University of Chicago began to write about the economics of discrimination. His writing was contemporaneous to the Brown case which was decided in 1954. Becker’s book, titled The Economics of Discrimination and released in 1957, began a discussion on discrimination in the market which has yielded counterintuitive results in many instances.
Using economic assumptions to describe discriminatory behavior, Becker observed two basic features of discrimination. First, that discrimination may depress the wages and employment opportunities of those discriminated against and conversely that the discriminator may pay higher wages to avoid hiring a minority.
If for example, a white worker gets paid $2 more an hour than an African American worker, the employer is paying a $2 an hour penalty to maintain his discriminatory preferences. Over time, this is a difficult practice to maintain in a competitive environment. The result is parity when comparing equal, similarly situated people. Most employers or businesses are not willing to pay that penalty in the long run.
Since Becker’s book, others have also observed the impact of discrimination in markets and the tendency to move away from discrimination unless the base is sufficiently broad and the taste for discrimination is rather strong. However, in this scenario discrimination is highly likely to arise via democratic mechanisms as well, as it did in the South unless there is a constitutional constraint to prevent discriminatory democratic results.