[Fynch101]

First Class Economics graduate says OP is a ****ing retard

[Fynch101]

(Original post by chefdave)
Here's a list of policies I support:

1) Legalise full Sunday trading
2) Pull out of the EU
3) Abolish all taxes and replace the 11,000 page tax code with a simple land value tax covered in 4-5 pages.
4) Abolish all benefits and replace with a universal non-means tested Citizen's Dividend.
5) Privatise the BBC
6) Cut all wasteful spending and distribute the savings into the aforementioned Citizen's Dividend
7) Overturn the smoking ban
8) Legalise drugs, this is the 21st Century Goddammit!
9) End all immigration for 5 years.
10) Deport all illegals.
11) Referendum on a federalist UK to give Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland more power.
12) Abolish the House of Lords
13) Repeal the Human Rights Act
14) Repeal all unnecessary laws and regulations.
15) End all foreign wars and rebuild our defensive capacity.
16) Abolish foreign aid.
17) Abolish the NMW


I can't say how I'd like the economy run, I'd just like to see an end to the man made restrictions that prevent the economy from functioning efficiently. Laissez-faire is the way to go

You literally have so little idea of how the economy works.

Privatise the BBC? I'd rather not have advertising chucked down my throat when watching a nice bbc4 documentary thanks.

Abolish the NMW? Why? Don't you dare say because it creates unemployment...

[Fynch101]

(Original post by Tahooper)

16) Disagree (although we shouldn't give aid to countries that have a higher GDP than us e.g. Brazil)

When it comes to foreign aid, GDP means next to nothing, if anything it is GDP per capita and the distribution of income

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by Mbob)
Quite a strong statement, care to point to some research which suggests that the minimum wage has led to a net detriment to workers between 1999 and now?

Although I do not put much if any emphasis on data with regards to this issue, because there are so many factors, and I prefer to just think logically to prove the minimum wage hurts workers. Because it is law that should be state like this'

''Employers must discriminate against workers with low skills''

That is what the law in essence says. Now who are people with low skills? Young people are a good candidates. So lets see what has happened to youth unemployment since 1999 to now.



It has doubled from 500,000 to 1,000,000. Now I am not saying that this was definitely caused by the NMW. But I think it is pretty bloody likely. Considering that the causation makes absolute sense.

It is not natural for young people to be out of work. They are functional and can change quickly. However they tend to need to be trained up. Therefore are not very valuable. Therefore it does not make sense for high youth unemployment to be the natural course of events, unless wages are artificially raised to levels young peoples labour cannot justify.

There is a very good reason why apprenticeships and the new work experience schemes are getting young people working, it is because they pay less than NMW. Now I ask you. Which is better?

Get a low paying job, something to do, improve your skills, eventually get a higher wage?

Do not have a job, get depressed, your skills get worse, eventually you become dependent on welfare?

And does 'well intentioned front men' now include all major political parties and employer's organisations who support the minimum wage?

Intellectually many politicians know it is a bad idea and those who think it is a good idea are frankly idiots. However the politicians who know it is a bad idea do not have the political will to take on the unions and the misinformed public. I can guarantee the unions would come down with a terrible smear campaign to try and fight off abolition of the NMW, just like they have done with the work experience scheme.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Although I do not put much if any emphasis on data with regards to this issue, because there are so many factors, and I prefer to just think logically to prove the minimum wage hurts workers. Because it is law that should be state like this'

''Employers must discriminate against workers with low skills''

That is what the law in essence says. Now who are people with low skills? Young people are a good candidates. So lets see what has happened to youth unemployment since 1999 to now.



It has doubled from 500,000 to 1,000,000. Now I am not saying that this was definitely caused by the NMW. But I think it is pretty bloody likely. Considering that the causation makes absolute sense.

It is not natural for young people to be out of work. They are functional and can change quickly. However they tend to need to be trained up. Therefore are not very valuable. Therefore it does not make sense for high youth unemployment to be the natural course of events, unless wages are artificially raised to levels young peoples labour cannot justify.

There is a very good reason why apprenticeships and the new work experience schemes are getting young people working, it is because they pay less than NMW. Now I ask you. Which is better?

Get a low paying job, something to do, improve your skills, eventually get a higher wage?

Do not have a job, get depressed, your skills get worse, eventually you become dependent on welfare?




Intellectually many politicians know it is a bad idea and those who think it is a good idea are frankly idiots. However the politicians who know it is a bad idea do not have the political will to take on the unions and the misinformed public. I can guarantee the unions would come down with a terrible smear campaign to try and fight off abolition of the NMW, just like they have done with the work experience scheme.

Did you consider it might have been the recession?

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by py0alb)
Did you consider it might have been the recession?

I think the recession has made it worse, and as I said I do not like using empirical evidence for precisely this reason, but the youth unemployment problem was getting progressively worse since 1999 even when the economy was 'booming'. Youth unemployment had already risen to just short of 700,000 just prior to the credit crunch. One might have expected it to have fallen given all the 'growth' we had between 1999 to 2008 but it got worse.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
I think the recession has made it worse, and as I said I do not like using empirical evidence for precisely this reason, but the youth unemployment problem was getting progressively worse since 1999 even when the economy was 'booming'. Youth unemployment had already risen to just short of 700,000 just prior to the credit crunch. One might have expected it to have fallen given all the 'growth' we had between 1999 to 2008 but it got worse.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't like looking at the evidence because it directly contradicts your theory...

[Tom Dick and Harry]

(Original post by py0alb)
The purpose of the economy is to optimise net public utility, of that there is no doubt.

The questions that remain are "what do we mean by optimise?" and "what is the best way to go about it?"

The first question appears to be a fairly straightforward ethical question about the optimal distribution of utility, whereas the second is a very detailed and complex issue. However the two questions are inseperable - the optimum distribution and the method of production, distribution and incentive are necessarily interlinked.

Ideologically derived answers, such as a quasi-religious faith in the power of the free market are far too naive and simplistic to be of any great worth in this discussion.

I think your comment just gave me cancer -_-

...Pretentious **** that's useful to no-one.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Tom Dick and Harry)
I think your comment just gave me cancer

bowel cancer? I hear thats painful

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by py0alb)
I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't like looking at the evidence because it directly contradicts your theory...

I always find it remarkable how people can swear by the Marshillian supply and demand model. And then claim aggregate demand increases with falls in the general price level. Or that price floors do not cause surpluses.

I guess logic is just a nuisance that economists prefer to ignore sometimes.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
I always find it remarkable how people can swear by the Marshillian supply and demand model. And then claim aggregate demand increases with falls in the general price level. Or that price floors do not cause surpluses.

I guess logic is just a nuisance that economists prefer to ignore sometimes.

What is the slope of aggregate demand?

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by py0alb)
What is the slope of aggregate demand?

Down.

Although it does not make sense because quantity consumed of any particular thing is determined by relative prices. If all prices fall, which includes wages as wages are the price of labour, then nothing will in terms of qauntity. However the AD function I was taught completely negates that issue.

Arguments of spending savings do not hold as savings apparently equal investment. And regardless, people spend savings in anticipation of increasing prices, not because prices have just risen.

What I know about micro just contradicts what I was taught about macro. But hey, as long as your models fit Phillips curve data who gives a **** about logic.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
Down.

Although it does not make sense because quantity consumed of any particular thing is determined by relative prices. If all prices fall, which includes wages as wages are the price of labour, then nothing will in terms of qauntity. However the AD function I was taught completely negates that issue.

Arguments of spending savings do not hold as savings apparently equal investment. And regardless, people spend savings in anticipation of increasing prices, not because prices have just risen.

What I know about micro just contradicts what I was taught about macro. But hey, as long as your models fit Phillips curve data who gives a **** about logic.

Why does it slope down?

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by py0alb)
Why does it slope down?

I don't think it does. The whole notion of aggregate demand make little logical sense beyond a convenient explanation for some phenomena.

The best explanation is the effect falling prices has on savings. That is people start to spend their savings because those savings go further thus increasing quantity consumed or GDP. However this does not make sense because people spend savings anticipating inflation or start to save when anticipating deflation. Thus if people saw prices falling they might anticipate a deflationary spiral which would reduce consumption. And if savings equals investment then it should not make a difference anyway.

[t0ffee]

As capitalism is the unfortunate reality at the moment, my economic policies would be focused on creating things for Brits - there is no point having an economy based around people making things this country doesn't need and selling it to others - and I'd discourage any sort of foreign investment especially properties (as we want people who live in a and pay taxes in this country to have a controlling stake and influence).

A self contained economy focused on providing people with what the actually need is the best sort of economy imo.

[t0ffee]

(Original post by Fynch101)
You literally have so little idea of how the economy works.

But it doesn't work!!!!

[Mbob]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
So lets see what has happened to youth unemployment since 1999 to now.



It has doubled from 500,000 to 1,000,000. Now I am not saying that this was definitely caused by the NMW. But I think it is pretty bloody likely. Considering that the causation makes absolute sense.

Your argument is initially plausible, but I don't think it's backed up by the figures.

If you look at youth unemployment trends across Europe:



it would to difficult to argue by eyeballing that the UK suddenly became an outlier after 1999.

In additional, if you argument were true then it would be reasonable to assume unemployment to be lower for 16-20 years olds than for other groups since they have a lower minimum wage than everyone else.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by Mbob)
Your argument is initially plausible, but I don't think it's backed up by the figures.

If you look at youth unemployment trends across Europe:



it would to difficult to argue by eyeballing that the UK suddenly became an outlier after 1999.

In additional, if you argument were true then it would be reasonable to assume unemployment to be lower for 16-20 years olds than for other groups since they have a lower minimum wage than everyone else.

The problem with data like this is there are so many factors asserting that the data reveals any particular relationship between two variables is just not scientific. That graph proves nothing at all. It is worse than the crappy graph I used.

If you use the classic economics trick of saying ceteris paribus (hold all other variables constant) then it is clear that price floors cause surpluses. Or that that minimum wages cause unemployment. If you hold all the other variables constant, which in practice they never are. To argue anything else is just madness.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Classical Liberal)
The problem with data like this is there are so many factors asserting that the data reveals any particular relationship between two variables is just not scientific. That graph proves nothing at all. It is worse than the crappy graph I used.

If you use the classic economics trick of saying ceteris paribus (hold all other variables constant) then it is clear that price floors cause surpluses. Or that that minimum wages cause unemployment. If you hold all the other variables constant, which in practice they never are. To argue anything else is just madness.

Labour demand is derived demand, that is it relies on demand for goods and services. The only way to produce the same amount of goods and services with less labour is to invest capital. If the price of labour is still cheaper than the price of shifting the technology curve, then there will be no surplus.

Low skilled labourers have very limited bargaining power. The evidence suggests that the implementation of a minimum wage (which is still pretty pitiful if we're honest) has had very little effect.

Frankly, even if it had, what would have the effects been? Encouraging increased capital investment in productivity methods to reduce the amount of workers necessary. Is that so terrible?

After all we all know what increased productivity per worker translates to down the line: increased living standards across the board.

[Tahooper]

(Original post by Fynch101)
When it comes to foreign aid, GDP means next to nothing, if anything it is GDP per capita and the distribution of income

Meh, I was trying to put across that we shouldn't give aid to countries wealthier than us, even if an unfortunate natural disaster occurred.