nvm

[Lord Baal]

You would be a terrible military strategists. The Balkans and Greece were wholly unsuited to such a large scale landing consisting of rough terrain and difficult supply lines. How quickly the Salonika campaign and Gallipoli are forgotten. Also landing in the Balkans and Greece would leave the rest of Europe free to fall to the USSR. So we would have the Balkans and the Soviet tanks would be parked in Amsterdam and Paris instead. Brilliant.

I'm pretty sure I'd go with Churchill over Roosevelt, even though Winston was never that great himself. And who said anything about a large-scale campaign? The point of targeting the "soft underbelly" was to promote British influence after the war. To do that, you just need to kick the Germans out, probably linking with the Russians before opening yet another front in the West. Besides, I'm not arguing that targeting the Balkans would be good, merely that it would have been better than Overlord. Personally, I'd have gone for Southern France. Then again, I'd have opened a 2nd front much earlier as well.

 

[Kal'thzar]

I'm pretty sure I'd go with Churchill over Roosevelt, even though Winston was never that great himself. And who said anything about a large-scale campaign? The point of targeting the "soft underbelly" was to promote British influence after the war. To do that, you just need to kick the Germans out, probably linking with the Russians before opening yet another front in the West. Besides, I'm not arguing that targeting the Balkans would be good, merely that it would have been better than Overlord. Personally, I'd have gone for Southern France. Then again, I'd have opened a 2nd front much earlier as well.

From what I recall the Americans wanted to go after the heart of the problem, Germany, as quickly as possible however when they entered the war the British were still more important, and as a result would have had to carry out such a cross-channel invasion. They didn't like this, and said that they didn't even have enough shipping to be able to think about carrying it out. Churchill on the other hand wanted some action somewhere, Brooke I'm not entirely sure what he wanted to begin with. Churchill essentially pushed operation Torch through. FDR just wanted American troops committed and a victory gained for political considerations (election).

Now during the time when the Americans started getting the shipping and manpower to invade france proper, they'd already used a massive amount up in Torch and the subsequent campaigns, thus they were in no position to immediatly launch another invasion. Hence the wait.

Invasion was only ever really going to be as quick as possible via Britain onto the North of France, the shipping requirements for elsewhere would have been huge and put too much strain on the ports, the North of france was basically a short jump from the nearest safe supply depot (the UK).

Finally about promoting british interests, since Churchill still saw the Soviets as a threat, he wanted to limit their infulence as much as possible, the Americans however gave too much consideration for the Soviets and viewed the British attempts as attempts to further their own infulence.

 

[Lord Baal]

From what I recall the Americans wanted to go after the heart of the problem, Germany, as quickly as possible however when they entered the war the British were still more important, and as a result would have had to carry out such a cross-channel invasion. They didn't like this, and said that they didn't even have enough shipping to be able to think about carrying it out. Churchill on the other hand wanted some action somewhere, Brooke I'm not entirely sure what he wanted to begin with. Churchill essentially pushed operation Torch through. FDR just wanted American troops committed and a victory gained for political considerations (election).

You remember incorrectly. If my memory serves me, the original option pushed by Churchill was an invasion of France, but this was vetoed by FDR as he wanted a quick and decisive US victory for political reasons. Operation: Sledgehammer, as Churchill's plan was caused, was a temporary beachhead in Western Frnace which would not have liberated the country, but would have served the purpose of letting up pressure on Stalin - who was still on the back-foot at this time. FDR liked it at first, but then realised that there'd be a lot of US casualties and that a temporary beachhead for the sole purpose of helping the Russians could be seen as a defeat by the American people, so he vetoed it. Churchill then offered up Torch, which wa a good idea with poor execution. FDR is largely responsible for that poor execution. You're right about what FDR wanted though. He was more concerned with domestic political considerations than the war. Another reason I never much liked him.

Now during the time when the Americans started getting the shipping and manpower to invade france proper, they'd already used a massive amount up in Torch and the subsequent campaigns, thus they were in no position to immediatly launch another invasion. Hence the wait.

They'd have used far less troops if they hadn't buggered Torch up. Or rather, they'd have used more ships and troops, but they'd have won quicker and more would have become available. Then there was always the possibility - pretty likely - that many Vichy troops would defect to De Gaulle or Giraud if they'd been included in Torch at a higher capacity. Certainly the FDR-backed Darlan appeasement alienated the Free French. If they'd handled Torch with any degree of skill the invasion of France could have been launched in 1943.

Invasion was only ever really going to be as quick as possible via Britain onto the North of France, the shipping requirements for elsewhere would have been huge and put too much strain on the ports, the North of france was basically a short jump from the nearest safe supply depot (the UK).

It was also pretty well defended. I've got no real problem with an invasion of Northern France, I just think there were better options available at the time. By this point, North Africa and Egypt were perfectly safe supply depots themselves.

Finally about promoting british interests, since Churchill still saw the Soviets as a threat, he wanted to limit their infulence as much as possible, the Americans however gave too much consideration for the Soviets and viewed the British attempts as attempts to further their own infulence.

And the Americans were stupid to do it. It was patently obvious the Soviets were a threat. One need only look at their activities before Operation: Barbarossa to have proof of that. Admittedly, the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact weren't yet known, but it was still clear that they'd seized the Baltics and invaded Finland with no justification whatsoever. On top of that, they were communists, which by itself was reason for concern among capitalist nations. Promoting British interests may not have been America's goal, but FDR shamelessly caved to Russian imperialism in Eastern Europe while fighting British imperialism in the Mediterranean, Africa and Asia. That was just stupid. Truman tried to fix that, but Britain was already too weak to hold its empire after the war.

 

[LightSpectra]

I remembered I had this saved on my computer, because it's lol-worthy:

 

[Camikaze]

I remembered I had this saved on my computer, because it's lol-worthy:

Is this the same constitution ignoring FDR that insisted on having elections during the war out of necessity of complying with the constitution?

Asked about whether or not elections would take place:

You have come to the wrong place, because - gosh, all these people haven't read the Constitution. Unfortunately, I have.

 

[Kal'thzar]

You remember incorrectly. If my memory serves me, the original option pushed by Churchill was an invasion of France, but this was vetoed by FDR as he wanted a quick and decisive US victory for political reasons. Operation: Sledgehammer, as Churchill's plan was caused, was a temporary beachhead in Western France which would not have liberated the country, but would have served the purpose of letting up pressure on Stalin - who was still on the back-foot at this time. FDR liked it at first, but then realised that there'd be a lot of US casualties and that a temporary beachhead for the sole purpose of helping the Russians could be seen as a defeat by the American people, so he vetoed it. Churchill then offered up Torch, which wa a good idea with poor execution. FDR is largely responsible for that poor execution. You're right about what FDR wanted though. He was more concerned with domestic political considerations than the war. Another reason I never much liked him.

Ehh Actually Operation Sledgehammer, Operation Roundup and Operation Bolero all originated from the American Military Generals i.e Marshall and his subordinates. Operation Sledgehammer was a cross channel invasion of limited scope to be launched in the face of collapsing Russian positions, the limited objectives were to basically reduce pressure on the Russians. Roundup was slightly more serious, aka an actual invasion, unfortunately/fortunately the Allies didn't have the capacity to carry these operations out (as the Dieppe raid proved, such operations are quite hard). Operation Bolero was the build up of American forces in the UK for an eventual invasion of France.

Now Brooke the British CIGS hated Sledgehammer and Roundup, and strongly opposed them, pointing out lack of shipping, the waste of resources and other factors. However the Shipping is the strongest point. Churchill loved Bolero, as it put American forces on the ground in case of invasion, something he wanted. However Churchill was convinced by Brooke that Sledgehammer/Roundup were not to be pursued, at least not so soon until proper resources had been built up.

Churchill quite cynically I suppose, proposed Operation Torch, this helped him in Africa and also ruled out an Invasion of Europe proper in 1943. Brooke and Marshall both disliked it. However Churchill convinced FDR, and thus the generals were ordered to make it so. Now in my mind Operation Torch, as the first operation in Europe was always going to have teething problems, they also weren't sure how to treat the french, which was just plain difficult. So on the scope of things, it wasn't the perfect operation, but it did the job.

FDR did mess up with Darlan, bit strange that both the UK and the USA had 'pet' frenchmen for a while, not sure what FDR hoped to achieve.

They'd have used far less troops if they hadn't buggered Torch up. Or rather, they'd have used more ships and troops, but they'd have won quicker and more would have become available. Then there was always the possibility - pretty likely - that many Vichy troops would defect to De Gaulle or Giraud if they'd been included in Torch at a higher capacity. Certainly the FDR-backed Darlan appeasement alienated the Free French. If they'd handled Torch with any degree of skill the invasion of France could have been launched in 1943.

I know they tried to include Giraud, he was a bit demanding however (wanted to be commander of the entire operation?), can't remember de Gaulle, but I don't think Churchill liked him much, and didn't want him out from under his thumb anyway.

With regards to buggering Torch up, perfection is difficult, and the way FDR had set up Politics at Washington didn't really help. I don't expect perfection however, I don't even expect very good at this stage, maybe just decent.

It was also pretty well defended. I've got no real problem with an invasion of Northern France, I just think there were better options available at the time. By this point, North Africa and Egypt were perfectly safe supply depots themselves.

North Africa, Egypt etc didn't have the infrastructure to build up resources to the degree that Britain had the capacity to serve, all such operations would have been much more limited. More to the point the implementation of bolero had meant that they had been building up troops in the UK, since before Operation Torch was launched, it would have taken a long time to move such a large amount of troops to another staging area, since they would have had to wait till these staging areas were subsequently captured.

Furthermore the Americans (and this emanated quite a lot from the American Generals as well) thought that the British were being well, cowardly about going into Northern France and by this point the Americans had most of the material and resources and bullied the British into this position too. The Americans weren't as worried about casualties. It did make a certain amount of sense, go for the heart of the problem, Germany, from the strongest power base you have in the region, Britain. But the blame for such an operation doesn't rest completely on FDR's shoulders, his military advisers were pushing it hard.

And the Americans were stupid to do it. It was patently obvious the Soviets were a threat. One need only look at their activities before Operation: Barbarossa to have proof of that. Admittedly, the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact weren't yet known, but it was still clear that they'd seized the Baltics and invaded Finland with no justification whatsoever. On top of that, they were communists, which by itself was reason for concern among capitalist nations. Promoting British interests may not have been America's goal, but FDR shamelessly caved to Russian imperialism in Eastern Europe while fighting British imperialism in the Mediterranean, Africa and Asia. That was just stupid. Truman tried to fix that, but Britain was already too weak to hold its empire after the war.

I can agree with this, Early on there was some hope that the Americans could go back to to letting the British take care of things. This proved false over the course of the war, and Americas growing up period was rapid and full of mistakes, Unfortunately the Americans were still fairly short-sighted and couldn't really fully accept the consequences of the war . (Come on, they were used to having this tiny army and just sort of sitting out and pointing at the Old world!). Now if you put any American president from recently back in FDR's shoes I'm pretty sure the outcome would have been different, but now the Americans are used to being on top and thinking ahead...well sort of.

 

[LightSpectra]

Is this the same constitution ignoring FDR that insisted on having elections during the war out of necessity of complying with the constitution.

Why would he care whether or not elections were held? He had an absurd degree of popularity, at least among the people he hadn't starved or imprisoned. Of course, this is the same Constitution that he remarked was "marvelously elastic" (id est, useless) after it began confirming all of his acts after it was filled with his own justices.

 

[aelf]

Most arguments in favor of artificial minimum wages seem to imply that natural minimum wages don't exist, which is fallacious.

If they did in any reasonable way, there would hardly be distressing levels of poverty.

To insist that there is a decent natural baseline that exists if only people favour more laissez-faire economics, you would probably have to throw your lot with xarthaz and his nutty Mises nonsense.

Social welfare laws are also possibly a good thing, but initiating them during a depression is often a bad idea. Social welfare in general (there are plenty of counter-intuitive programs in this sphere, so do not take this as a principle but a trend) increases prosperity at the cost of economic growth. Hence, I do not think the correct course of action during the '30s was to increase aid.

That might not even be the conventional wisdom anymore. After all, who is willing or able to commit himself fully and effectively if he is so uncertain about his own economic condition? A lot of people would be much more concerned about scrounging up what they need instead of doing what they do well. Social scientists (for lack of a better term that comes to mind) have realised that a social safety net might be important for promoting growth by giving people some sense of economic security to choose what they do and work optimally. And it certainly helps stave off the breakdown of order during desperate times.

Ronald Reagan would be one of the top three, for initiating policies that ended the Cold War.

I guess showing those damn commies their place must be really important.

 

[LightSpectra]

If they did in any reasonable way, there would hardly be distressing levels of poverty.

If you're implying that you could simply go to some central African or southern Asian country that's in deep poverty and legislate in a generous minimum wage, and all "distressing poverty" (vague term but I'll run with it) will disappear, is something that not even socialist economists think is feasible.

To insist that there is a decent natural baseline that exists if only people favour more laissez-faire economics, you would probably have to throw your lot with xarthaz and his nutty Mises nonsense.

I'm not an Austrian economist, nor do I think pure laissez-faire is a good idea, if these are strawmen you're attempting to establish. The notion that artificial minimum wages have no positive effect on poverty has been demonstrated in various studies.

That might not even be the conventional wisdom anymore. After all, who is willing or able to commit himself fully and effectively if he is so uncertain about his own economic condition? A lot of people would be much more concerned about scrounging up what they need instead of doing what they do well. Social scientists (for lack of a better term that comes to mind) have realised that a social safety net might be important for promoting growth by giving people some sense of economic security to choose what they do and work optimally. And it certainly helps stave off the breakdown of order during desperate times.

Safety nets also in some cases prevent people from seeking employment during a depression because they are under the impression that they can go a certain length of time without a salary. Of course this isn't some malicious idea that one should hold, though the point is that if people are willing to stay unemployed rather than take jobs that they rather wouldn't have, then a possibility for trade is either stunted or outsourced.

I guess showing those damn commies their place must be really important.

Certainly, when they've suppressed various liberties and economic growth in over a dozen countries for 50 years. Unless you'd also like to enter the league of Iron Curtain deniers, in which case, be my guest.

 

[aelf]

If you're implying that you could simply go to some central African or southern Asian country that's in deep poverty and legislate in a generous minimum wage, and all "distressing poverty" (vague term but I'll run with it) will disappear, is something that not even socialist economists think is feasible.

No, of course not.

I'm not an Austrian economist, nor do I think pure laissez-faire is a good idea, if these are strawmen you're attempting to establish. The notion that artificial minimum wages have no positive effect on poverty has been demonstrated in various studies.

There is no strawman here. I'm questioning your notion of a 'natural' minimum wage. Well, there isn't. Ever heard of the race to the bottom, for one?

Come out and defend it, if you like, but I'm just saying I won't be surprised if your reasoning ultimately boils down to the crap peddled by 'anarcho-capitalists'.

Safety nets also in some cases prevent people from seeking employment during a depression because they are under the impression that they can go a certain length of time without a salary. Of course this isn't some malicious idea that one should hold, though the point is that if people are willing to stay unemployed rather than take jobs that they rather wouldn't have, then a possibility for trade is either stunted or outsourced.

So you'd rather there be bread riots?

Certainly, when they've suppressed various liberties and economic growth in over a dozen countries for 50 years. Unless you'd also like to enter the league of Iron Curtain deniers, in which case, be my guest.

No, I'm not an "Iron Curtain denier", but I wonder if Reagan's policies were necessary for the end of the Cold war, and if the good outweighed the bad to an extent that is enough to make him one of the best US presidents.

 

[LightSpectra]

There is no strawman here. I'm questioning your notion of a 'natural' minimum wage. Well, there isn't. Ever heard of the race to the bottom, for one?

Whether or not the "race to the bottom" phenomenon exists is extremely debatable. I can say with some certainty, however, that legislating an artificial minimum wage is essentially exchanging employment for an increase in salaries for others. I don't find that fair. It's implicitly saying that one person should have a better job, at the cost of another person not having this job.

If there's a shortage of people to be employed, then the natural minimum wage rises because companies have to compete to get workers, and do so by offering higher wages and more benefits. Companies have to hire more people when they make investments; and there's always more money to make investments with if taxes are lower. Therefore, what is referred to pejoratively as "trickle-down economics" actually works. This is demonstrable during Kennedy's presidency, when he cut taxes on the upper echelons a great deal, and also during Reagan's: taxes were cut for everybody, and employment rose at a very high rate.

Now, many leftists contend that as the goal of a business is to make profits, that therefore they have an incentive to lower salaries whenever possible. This is true. They can do so when the amount of labor increases faster than relative amount of investment. Though the problem with trying to counter this trend with an artificial minimum wage is that as I said above, since there's a surplus of people who need employment, that you're essentially forcing people to lose potential jobs so that others can have higher wages. I don't think that's fair. Generally, I think that if somebody is willing to work for a salary that would be considered poor, then they're doing so because they would rather make this money than not. Therefore, to tell this person that he cannot have this job on account of it not being good enough is absurd.

Come out and defend it, if you like, but I'm just saying I won't be surprised if your reasoning ultimately boils down to the crap peddled by 'anarcho-capitalists'.

If extremists hold some correct beliefs by chance or consequence, then I won't berate them for it, and neither should you.

So you'd rather there be bread riots?

They're inevitable in countries that simply don't have a large surplus of food, as was the case in most countries before the mid-20th century, and they're almost extinct in developed countries nowadays. If you actually cannot afford food, you can walk into any hospital and they'd be compelled to feed you for free under medical purposes.

No, I'm not an "Iron Curtain denier", but I wonder if Reagan's policies were necessary for the end of the Cold war, and if the good outweighed the bad to an extent that is enough to make him one of the best US presidents.

Figure out the combined population of Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, East Germany and Bulgaria. (Arguably you should also count Armenia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the other non-Russian countries in the Soviet Union.) What you've said is that it's debatable whether or not the fact that almost all of these millions of people now live in free countries outweighs the negatives of Reagan's presidency. I'd like to hear what possible argument you have in mind.

 

[say1988]

But there are many historians that don't believe Reagan's policies had any effect on the fall of the Soviet Union, and development of free governments in those countries. So the amount of good that Reagan's policies can be judged as quite small.

 

[LightSpectra]

But there are many historians that don't believe Reagan's policies had any effect on the fall of the Soviet Union, and development of free governments in those countries. So the amount of good that Reagan's policies can be judged as quite small.

Argument from authority is the weakest form of argument, as Boethius says.

But in all seriousness, saying "many historians" without mention of name or a cited work is not going to convince me. Regardless of this, they would have to demonstrate exactly what caused the collapse of the Soviet economy if not the crippling deflation of oil prices.

 

[Karalysia]

Yeah lets take the word of some guy on a forum over published and well respected historians and academics. Anti-intellectual much?

 

[aelf]

Whether or not the "race to the bottom" phenomenon exists is extremely debatable. I can say with some certainty, however, that legislating an artificial minimum wage is essentially exchanging employment for an increase in salaries for others. I don't find that fair. It's implicitly saying that one person should have a better job, at the cost of another person not having this job.

Not all who are unemployed remain the same people. The churn works both ways, yeah? Besides, with a social safety net, unemployment wouldn't be that horrible, especially if retraining is emphasised to help ensure it's temporary.

If there's a shortage of people to be employed, then the natural minimum wage rises because companies have to compete to get workers, and do so by offering higher wages and more benefits. Companies have to hire more people when they make investments; and there's always more money to make investments with if taxes are lower. Therefore, what is referred to pejoratively as "trickle-down economics" actually works. This is demonstrable during Kennedy's presidency, when he cut taxes on the upper echelons a great deal, and also during Reagan's: taxes were cut for everybody, and employment rose at a very high rate.

This doesn't prove that there is a decent natural minimum. The minimum can be as low as anything, especially thanks to globalisation. That's how the race of to the bottom comes about. A general lack of good labour laws spurs cutthroat competition between countries that creates a downward spiral of wages. The situation becomes one where companies are forcing workers to compete with each other within and across national borders. A small fraction of society (employers and workers facing inelastic demand for their labour) benefits, while the majority of its members suffer. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call that a good thing.

There is also no proof that cutting taxes on the wealthy will necessarily have the desired effect. The level of investment also depends on a host of other things, including market confidence. In an unregulated environment, I'd say that confidence is a very volatile thing. Besides, growth in steady state is highly dependent on technological growth and hence R&D, which has a pretty low tax price elasticity. As far as I can see, the best way to encourage more research and innovation is to allow diverse enough skilled workforce, something that cannot be achieved without economic security for individuals.

Now, many leftists contend that as the goal of a business is to make profits, that therefore they have an incentive to lower salaries whenever possible. This is true. They can do so when the amount of labor increases faster than relative amount of investment. Though the problem with trying to counter this trend with an artificial minimum wage is that as I said above, since there's a surplus of people who need employment, that you're essentially forcing people to lose potential jobs so that others can have higher wages. I don't think that's fair. Generally, I think that if somebody is willing to work for a salary that would be considered poor, then they're doing so because they would rather make this money than not. Therefore, to tell this person that he cannot have this job on account of it not being good enough is absurd.

Yeah, and some libertarians believe that if someone is willing to work as a slave, he should be free to do so. Not all freedom is good or fair.

They're inevitable in countries that simply don't have a large surplus of food, as was the case in most countries before the mid-20th century, and they're almost extinct in developed countries nowadays. If you actually cannot afford food, you can walk into any hospital and they'd be compelled to feed you for free under medical purposes.

I don't even understand how this is a response. So you'd rather have public disorder over welfare during bad times? Talk about being an extremist.

Figure out the combined population of Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, East Germany and Bulgaria. (Arguably you should also count Armenia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the other non-Russian countries in the Soviet Union.) What you've said is that it's debatable whether or not the fact that almost all of these millions of people now live in free countries outweighs the negatives of Reagan's presidency. I'd like to hear what possible argument you have in mind.

Yeah, and I'm supposed to believe that the Reagan administration single-handedly caused that, and that its policies didn't have negative consequences (like pouring vast sums of public money down the blood-stained military drain) that could negate whatever good they brought about

 

[Camikaze]

Argument from authority is the weakest form of argument, as Boethius says.

But in all seriousness, saying "many historians" without mention of name or a cited work is not going to convince me.

I'm not an Austrian economist, nor do I think pure laissez-faire is a good idea, if these are strawmen you're attempting to establish. The notion that artificial minimum wages have no positive effect on poverty has been demonstrated in various studies.

Links please.

 

[LightSpectra]

Not all who are unemployed remain the same people. The churn works both ways, yeah? Besides, with a social safety net, unemployment wouldn't be that horrible, especially if retraining is emphasised to help ensure it's temporary.

Well, here's a disagreement that's likely ideological -- and we aren't going to argue out. You think it's better to make being in a state of unemployment more bearable, whereas I think it's better to to push people to find jobs and bring themselves out of financial difficulties.

This doesn't prove that there is a decent natural minimum. The minimum can be as low as anything, especially thanks to globalisation.

Que? Globalization has risen the natural minimum wage in many third world countries. The reason people work in sweat shops in China and other places are because these jobs provide a higher wage than anything else they can find. If they weren't working there, they'd often go starve, or have to resort to prostitution.

That's how the race of to the bottom comes about. A general lack of good labour laws spurs cutthroat competition between countries that creates a downward spiral of wages.

Competition causes wages to rise, not lower. This is logically deducible. If there's more competition, then there's more urge to invest and grow faster, which requires more jobs. More jobs means that each individual worker is able to acquire a higher salary.

If what you were saying is true, then places like Hong Kong and Estonia would be experiencing catastrophic wage drops. That's the opposite of the case.

There is also no proof that cutting taxes on the wealthy will necessarily have the desired effect. The level of investment also depends on a host of other things, including market confidence. In an unregulated environment, I'd say that confidence is a very volatile thing. Besides, growth in steady state is highly dependent on technological growth and hence R&D, which has a pretty low tax price elasticity. As far as I can see, the best way to encourage more research and innovation is to allow diverse enough skilled workforce, something that cannot be achieved without economic security for individuals.

Technological growth is a factor but not to the degree you think it is. China is currently experiencing an insane amount of growth, though technologically, they're almost entirely leeching off of other developed countries or just lagging behind in general. The same is true of the Baltic nations and other countries on the threshold of being considered "developed."

Another point to make clear is that investments for the most part come from the upper classes. If you raise taxes on them too high, they move their investments to other countries, thus significantly hampering economic growth and job opportunities.

Yeah, and some libertarians believe that if someone is willing to work as a slave, he should be free to do so. Not all freedom is good or fair.

Come again? If somebody is willing to work "as a slave," he's doing so because that's the best work he can find. If you deny him that, then you're condemning him to starvation or even an even worse occupation. This is a sad truth about third world countries.

I don't even understand how this is a response. So you'd rather have public disorder over welfare during bad times? Talk about being an extremist.

No, you misunderstand. People could afford food during the Great Depression, so FDR attempted to increase commerce by burning crops (thus raising the price of food). The end result was that afterward, many people who were just getting by could no longer afford it.

Yeah, and I'm supposed to believe that the Reagan administration single-handedly caused that,

I never said he single-handedly caused it. He had a great deal of help from figures such as Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. But, he was the primary mover in the war's end.

and that its policies didn't have negative consequences (like pouring vast sums of public money down the blood-stained military drain) that could negate whatever good they brought about

If I'm reading this right, you're seriously contending that the financial cost of ending the Cold War wasn't worth the freedom it won. Not even counting the ridiculousness of that, I've already pointed out that the increased military spending was an investment, as it resulted in us having to spend a great deal less on the defense budget after the war was over. (The reduction of the defense budget was one of the causes of the budget surplus during the Clinton administration, for example.)

Links please.

A summary of all of the major recent findings pertaining to minimum wage.

 

[Camikaze]

A summary of all of the major recent findings pertaining to minimum wage.

If by recent you mean before 1995, then okay. Nice politically motivated source citing right-wing economists. I will give you that you are bothered to do more research than me, so I'm not going to counter you with any sources, so much as saying that the belief that having no minimum wage will reduce poverty is absurd, and that you've only provided a source that is entirely politically self-serving, and most likely in the interests of big business.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

The Constitution says almost nothing about economic policy. It is a plan of government mechanics, not of ways to solve issues in the government.

 

[LightSpectra]

If by recent you mean before 1995, then okay. Nice politically motivated source citing right-wing economists.

Perhaps they're right-wing based on the discoveries they've made. It's rather incredulous to say that you won't accept their findings on the basis of their political beliefs. By this motivation, you could discard any finding in history on the basis that there was an ulterior motive behind the final conclusion.

so much as saying that the belief that having no minimum wage will reduce poverty is absurd,

It's not absurd. It makes sense. Minimum wages force companies to employ less people, who may be in poverty because of this.

The Constitution says almost nothing about economic policy. It is a plan of government mechanics, not of ways to solve issues in the government.

Tenth Amendment. Anything not specifically delegated to the United States goes to state and local government.