patrick.net

Hircus says

But, if the payout is enough to replace welfare, then it's enough to create a massive new class of leeches who're content just living ultra-frugally in exchange for a life devoid of work. We would see an amazing surge in people who "cant work" or other BS fake disability excuses that they use the sound less loser-like.

It would also attract more immigrants.

Crybaby:

marcus says

Trump is different becasue

Way different.

Here’s a new video i watched today. It’s about capitalism and inequality and about how raising wages makes customers that drive our economy further.
www.youtube.com/embed/q2gO4DKVpa8

Quigley says

Here’s a new video i watched today. It’s about capitalism and inequality and about how raising wages makes customers that drive our economy further.
www.youtube.com/embed/q2gO4DKVpa8

This guy presented a series of lies and delusions in the video:

1. How can banning all workers with productivity lower than $15/hr and forcing employers to buy automation equipment to replace those banned workers be "inclusive"? The total wage paid out of course would drop as minimum wage laws work through the banning of lower-productivity jobs; minimum-wage laws don't work like Milton Friedman's "negative income tax" idea.

2. Where is he getting the idea that Seattle is doing great? How does he explain the fact that Seattle restaurant growth rate is falling way behind other big cities in the country that haven't imposed the $15 minimum wage? How does he explain companies like Boeing and Amazon have been trying to relocate out of Seattle? Do we need to review that Seattle is Dying video?

3. Henry Ford didn't pay workers $5/day in order to make them well off, but in order to slow down the high turn-over rate at his extremely emotionally draining production line; the lie that he fed to the media was just there to make life more difficult for his competitors who had lower productivity using traditional craftsman approach to car-making. The idea that a carmaker can become better off by paying workers enough so they can afford cars themselves makes about as much sense as the idea that a snake can feed itself by eating itself! The model T alone sold 15 million copies, whereas his workforce numbered less than 15,000 at the time of his pay raise. How would increasing sales by 0.1% make any significant difference? The real reason for his drastic wage raise was the company having to hire 52,000 people a year in order to fill those less than 15,000 jobs; i.e the turn-over rate was over 300% in a year! because the job was excruciatingly draining both physically and emotionally. So he had to raise wages in order to keep workers in order to reduce training cost and accident cost.

4. The French Revolution did not come about due to Feudalistic inequality. The conditions in Germany and in Russia were far more unequal than in France. 18th century France was actually very liberal by the standards of the day (tabloids were making fun of the King and the Queen without consequences). The problem with France was having too many "leftists": too many over-educated professional "students" with little marketable skills. That's why they took their chances in revolution, financed by British money. When Russia finally had similar over-supply of over-educated "students" with little marketable skills a century later, they embraced even more bloody revolutions.

5. Like himself said, him making 1000 times the median wage doesn't mean him buying 1000 pairs of pants. That's actually a good thing! His wife demanding a bag costing 1000 times the price of an average pair of pants would actually cost the society much less natural resources than 1000 pairs of pants would cost. Investors are allocating more resources into his hands because his self-acknowledged fore-sight! Wouldn't we want to allocate more of the society's resources / savings into the hands of people with foresight? and allow the market to re-allocate resources when they make mistakes?

6. How would taking resources away from those people with foresight and give them to risk-averse bureaucrats help a society? It never does. The hind-bound economies of the "East" (18th century France relative to England, mid-19th century Germany relative to France, late 19th / early 20th century Russia relative to Germany, mid-20th century China relative to Russia) may have witnessed short bursts of fast economic growth as they copied the technology leaders to their respective "West," but every time that rapid growth came to a crashing halt and massive internal strife as such high rates of growth couldn't be sustained once the bureaucrats can't find obvious targets to copy.

7. His faint praises of capitalism sounds like trying to displace a Capitalistic Free Market with national socialism.

Reality says

4. The French Revolution did not come about due to Feudalistic inequality. The conditions in Germany and in Russia were far more unequal than in France. 18th century France was actually very liberal by the standards of the day (tabloids were making fun of the King and the Queen without consequences). The problem with France was having too many "liberals": too many over-educated professional "students" with little marketable skills. That's why they took their chances in revolution, financed by British money. When Russia finally had similar over-supply of over-educated "students" with little marketable skills a century later, they embraced even more bloody revolutions.

Ferme generale (Tax Farming) and the huge national debt from many wars (inc. to help our asses out in the Revolutionary War), which made France even more dependent on selling offices, which the holders then used to squeeze money out of the populace.

Revolutions happen because of opposing forms of modernization. For the Glorious Revolution, it was James II trying to make England more like authoritarian France vs. more like the Dutch Republic represented by William the Silent. In the French Revolution, the bureaucratic state insisted it could further glorify France from Versailles but was opposed by liberals who wished to professionalize the bureaucracy and rationalize the huge numbers of polities (tons of internal tariffs and differing legal systems). Unlike the Glorious Revolution (which was a Revolution, involving riots and uprisings against James and his centralizing, bureaucratizing ways imitating an Earlier King of France).

Once the King was sidelined, it became a battle between Liberal Republican Moderates/Constitutional Monarchists versus the Usual Centralizing, hyperrational Leftist Suspects, which is why Robespierre's reign is consider the first Modern Leftist Revolution. However, it didn't start that way.

A sloppy and general view:
1. Absolute Monarchism, with centralized bureaucracy and the State, It Is Me!
vs.
2. Liberal Republicanism, looking to Britain (whom they regarded as Nobel Savages!), rationalized (one law for all, doing away with countless local laws and internal tariffs) but more (not necessarily totally) decentralized
vs.
3. Authoritarian Republicanism, completely rationalized but not decentralized at all.

Continentals, unlike Anglo-Americans, don't know when to stop and take a break, they have to go to the Extremes.

https://nitter.pussthecat.org/Not_the_Bee/status/1445153897304113154

Andrew Yang Says He Has Left Democratic Party

A tov bot post. Long time no see.

His post is from 2019. I don't know what happened to Peter.

I met him once. He was pretty old, so maybe he no longer with us.

Tulsi Gabbard is as off the reservation as she has always been -- so maybe we'll get that Yang/Gabbard ticket in 2024.

Reality says

4. The French Revolution did not come about due to Feudalistic inequality. The conditions in Germany and in Russia were far more unequal than in France. 18th century France was actually very liberal by the standards of the day (tabloids were making fun of the King and the Queen without consequences). The problem with France was having too many "leftists": too many over-educated professional "students" with little marketable skills. That's why they took their chances in revolution, financed by British money. When Russia finally had similar over-supply of over-educated "students" with little marketable skills a century later, they embraced even more bloody revolutions.

I think this is incorrect.

The French Revolution happened due to a collapse of their monetary system created by John Law. Basically, the money was tightly tied to the valuation of the The Mississippi Company - when it collapsed, the Livre collapsed.

We are taught that the aristocracy was targeted at the start. That's not true. The bankers were targeted first, then the aristocracy. That's who they killed and in that order.