Check your privileges

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't think this is even a matter of education so much as basic logic.

The lack of education is behind it though. Since he vented out everything he knows on the subject in his initial 'analysis,' that was probably parrot repetition from some right wing echo chamber in itself, he now has to make these wild illogical leaps just to "have something to say."

 

[Lexicus]

The lack of education is behind it though. Since he vented out everything he knows on the subject in his initial 'analysis,' that was probably parrot repetition from some right wing echo chamber in itself, he now has to make these wild illogical leaps just to "have something to say."

Oh yes, all I'm saying is it wouldn't require any education in the subject to follow what I'm saying here, just some reading comprehension and logical skills.

I mean, in keeping with my salt analogy, "less salt is always better than more salt" is the kind of simplistic rule someone who knew nothing about cooking would use in lieu of actual knowledge, so...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh yes, all I'm saying is it wouldn't require any education in the subject to follow what I'm saying here, just some reading comprehension and logical skills.

I mean, in keeping with my salt analogy, "less salt is always better than more salt" is the kind of simplistic rule someone who knew nothing about cooking would use in lieu of actual knowledge, so...

I get that. Maybe the shift out of economics will get back into his depth.

 

[civver_764]

@Timsup2nothin I know seeing me post gets you excited, but my fan club unfortunately does not meet today. Please come again another time.

Let's draw an analogy that might make things easier. If we were talking about cooking, and you were to say "less salt is always better than more salt" and I were to say, "that isn't true," nowhere have I committed to the position that there's no such thing as too much salt.

So your position is that "federal debt doesn't matter up to a certain point." It's basically free money up to that point, right? So then by using that free money for ourselves we are taking away our children's ability to use that free money for themselves. Therefore you are making the situation worse for the future generation.

So even if we assume that it's free money that doesn't need to be paid back, it is still immoral.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@Timsup2nothin I know seeing me post gets you excited, but my fan club unfortunately does not meet today. Please come again another time.

So your position is that "federal debt doesn't matter up to a certain point." It's basically free money up to that point, right? So then by using that free money for ourselves we are taking away our children's ability to use that free money for themselves. Therefore you are making the situation worse for the future generation.

So even if we assume that it's free money that doesn't need to be paid back, it is still immoral.

I think I made it pretty clear that I'm not a fan when you asked me what I would like.

Now, since you still seem to have insufficient information to understand any answers given to your questions about economics why don't you go find the most elementary text you can find on the subject and try to catch up?

 

[Lexicus]

So your position is that "federal debt doesn't matter up to a certain point."

No.

It's basically free money up to that point, right?

Also no.

So then by using that free money for ourselves we are taking away our children's ability to use that free money for themselves.

third time's the no

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No.



Also no.



third time's the no

Those seem like simple answers, but I got ten bucks that says he won't understand them and will continue asking the same questions.

 

[civver_764]

No.



Also no.



third time's the no

Alright, obviously you see the flaw in your position but you're going to keep being pedantic to avoid admitting it.

 

[Lexicus]

Alright, obviously you see the flaw in your position but you're going to keep being pedantic to avoid admitting it.

No but seriously I don't even know the flaw, could you explain it to me?

 

[civver_764]

No but seriously I don't even know the flaw, could you explain it to me?

Reread our conversation until you get it, I guess.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No but seriously I don't even know the flaw, could you explain it to me?

Not a hope in the world. Might as well ask my cat to explain astrophysics.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Reread our conversation until you get it, I guess.

Funny thing is that the only one who has clearly demonstrated they don't understand the basic principles being discussed is you, by the questions you asked.

 

[rah]

Hmm, I'll take the cat for a hundred.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hmm, I'll take the cat for a hundred.

If you fly out to California to pick her up I'll give you the cat for free...if you promise a good home. She's getting a bit elderly to manage all these dogs with the iron paw she is used to wielding.

 

[metalhead]

If we assume that Walmart can somehow reinvest all of its money so that it avoids the tax increase, then we haven't actually solved the problem of needing extra tax revenue. The government will then have to take away those tax deductions, or find some other part of the economy to take from.

The methods by which corporations reduce their tax burdens generally involve building things or employing people. So they would likely generate economic activity as part of reducing their tax burden, economic activity which in turn generates tax revenue. I'm not saying prices won't go up at all, but they wouldn't go up by nearly as much as the extra cash would benefit consumers.

This has been studied, at length, as it relates to the minimum wage. Studies estimate that if you were to take the drastic step of doubling the minimum wage to $15/hr, prices would go up only 4.3%. Businesses always adapt to revenue challenges such that the effect on prices is minimized as much as is practicable, and tax increases would function no differently.

So even if 10% of a basic income were to be offset by inflation/higher prices - so what? Just figure that into your amount, and then you don't have to worry about it. That's certainly not a reason to not institute a basic income.

 

[Lexicus]

Reread our conversation until you get it, I guess.

I don't see how I could possibly learn anything about economics from reading our conversations. Maybe I could learn more about the Dunning-Kruger effect, though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't see how I could possibly learn anything about economics from reading our conversations. Maybe I could learn more about the Dunning-Kruger effect, though.

Nahhh. Everything you might see about that was so obvious that you no doubt picked it up on the first pass.

 

[civver_764]

This has been studied, at length, as it relates to the minimum wage. Studies estimate that if you were to take the drastic step of doubling the minimum wage to $15/hr, prices would go up only 4.3%. Businesses always adapt to revenue challenges such that the effect on prices is minimized as much as is practicable, and tax increases would function no differently.

Higher prices aren't the only way for negative effects to occur. If a business has to reinvest its money away from other areas, then those are areas are losing out. For example that might be less money that Walmart uses to create more jobs, or less money that is invested in some other business, or less money that is used towards cheaper production of goods. Somebody is going to lose out.

 

[metalhead]

Higher prices aren't the only way for negative effects to occur. If a business has to reinvest its money away from other areas, then those are areas are losing out. For example that might be less money that Walmart uses to create more jobs, or less money that is invested in some other business, or less money that is used towards cheaper production of goods. Somebody is going to lose out.

But the part you're missing is that investing in new stores, or extra employees, or higher wages, or an updated fleet of trucks, or a streamlined supply chain all generate tax deductions. If you raise taxes on businesses, then they have incentives to spend more money on tax deductible business activities, and tax deductible business activities employ people, either directly or indirectly. That's why they're tax deductible. Well, that and lobbying.

Then there's the consideration that every WalMart shopper in America would have an additional $7,000 or more to spend every year under my hypothetical basic income scheme. Surely you can see that even in a higher tax environment, WalMart is going to end up doing very well in that scenario. Some people might complain about the effects of a basic income; I guarantee you that retailers would not, even if the tradeoff is higher taxes.

 

[Lexicus]

and tax deductible business activities employ people, either directly or indirectly.

Some of them do, anyway.