Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Americans for prosperity back at it

<reads entire thread>

Spartanmack holds his own amongst a sea of libs. Nice going. Too bad you root for that cow school, otherwise we would probably be fast friends. :*)

<gets ready to duck>
<exits thread>

Holding my own? I feel like Billy Madison playing dodgeball. Although, I have to admit I was wrong about Gulo and have learned to like him and appreciate his perspective even when I don't agree. And 2 of my 5 siblings are wolverines (the rest Spartans) - I also root for Michigan when they're not playing MSU.
 
Last edited:
This is so ridiculously stupid, it's actually making me laugh out loud. Simply put, It doesn't work that way kid. If you were an economic genius or even a neophyte instead of an economic dolt, you'd understand that. Paying market wages does not result in deflation, it results in labor markets clearing more efficiently - it's like gains in productivity and those are good for an economy (an economy, not just producers as it makes things more affordable, leads to growth and thus more jobs). Additionally, market clearing prices for products are not driven by labor costs, they're driven by demand - you don't need to be an economic genius to know that. Deflation is a monetary phenomenon (driven by the money supply) and that's generally viewed as bad although it's really only bad if the people think it's long term and thus delay purchase decisions on the belief that things will be cheaper in the future (this is what's been going on in Japan since the early 90s and why lately they've been trying to set inflation targets) - sort of the opposite of runaway or hyper-inflation where everyone spends their money because they think it will be worth less in the future.

market wages? who sets these? someone is always willing to work for less. employee productivity is outpacing wages, if income kept pace with productivity since 1979, the average household income would be 92k, but it sits at 50k. keep in mind the top 1% income is up 240% over that time period.

we're expected to work harder, do more, make the same or modestly more. I guess that doesn't piss you off for some reason
 
if by "holds his own" you mean "changes the subject/moves the goalposts/argues semantics /responds with insults each time someone refutes some bullshit he posts, while never having the stones to concede a point" then yeah, I guess he's held his own.

there are no impartial judges on the internet, and you are an idiot, so whatever.

LOL - the Michchamp playbook to a tee. At least you have it memorized.

As far as idiots go - if I am an idiot, that must make you dumber than the shit stuck to a gnat's ass.

I lied - I entered the thread just to bait you into saying something stupid. . . . and voila - I reap my reward.
 
Holding my own? I feel like Billy Madison playing dodgeball. Although, I have to admit I was wrong about Gulo and have learned to like him and appreciate his perspective even when I don't agree. And 2 of my 5 siblings are wolverines (the rest Spartans) - I also root for Michigan when they're not playing MSU.

Agree on Red - always attempts to apply logic to his comments. BTW - I was joking I had two siblings attend MSU - just figured it was time to lighten the thread.
 
wait, you're saying again that 72k per year is a competitive salary in the private sector for someone with 10 years experience and a masters degree? that's your argument?

no, I'm clearly saying it's $72k for 9 months or ~$100k annualized. also, you can get a Master's in education for less than $15k - even in NY (i know at least 3 people who have done it) if you're not an idiot who pays private school tuition for a degree in education. Add to that the benefits, job security and >3 months off, that's a pretty good living and it's easily enough to live a middle class lifestyle in Detroit.

Wait, are you trying to tell me all Masters degrees and experience are equal and we should be comparing their comp to those with graduate degrees in engineering or business? By that logic, an MBA from deVry should be making the same as a Harvard MBA, right? Silly.
 
market wages? who sets these? someone is always willing to work for less. employee productivity is outpacing wages, if income kept pace with productivity since 1979, the average household income would be 92k, but it sits at 50k. keep in mind the top 1% income is up 240% over that time period.

we're expected to work harder, do more, make the same or modestly more. I guess that doesn't piss you off for some reason

Is that a real question, who sets market wages? If it is, get ready for the shocker - the MARKET sets market wages. And again, it's a good thing that productivity increases outpace wages - that's what makes things cheaper in the good way. When it's the reverse - wages outpacing productivity, you get inflation. Good thing for you I'm an economic genius because you don't know shit about economics. And if someone is always willing to work for less then wages would approach zero, or at least the minimum wage but we have barely over a million people in this country earning the minimum wage, as you pointed out most make much more than that.
 
Last edited:
Is that a real question, who sets market wages? If it is, get ready for the shocker - the MARKET sets market wages. And again, it's a good thing that productivity increases outpace wages - that's what makes things cheaper in the good way. When it's the reverse - wages outpacing productivity, you get inflation. Good thing for you I'm an economic genius because you don't know shit about economics. And if someone is always willing to work for less then wages would approach zero, or at least the minimum wage but we have barely over a million people in this country earning the minimum wage, as you pointed out most make much more than that.

I understand that the market sets market wages, but that's because you can always find someone will to work for a little bit less. tea party genius Michelle bachman advocates getting rid of the minimum wage as a way to wipe out unemployment, since they could then hire people to work for $2 or whatever they wanted to pay. I understand that you'd love to see higher corporate profits and labor basically indentured servants, but I don't think that's really the path to prosperity.

of course you're an inflation hawk too, you can't go too far without some conservative economist talking about this great inflation threat that never happens. yes prices rise but for the most part it's due to spikes in gas prices and food costs. I think it just comes from the conservative idea that the government should never seek to mitigate any economic pain.
 
Is that a real question, who sets market wages? If it is, get ready for the shocker - the MARKET sets market wages. And again, it's a good thing that productivity increases outpace wages - that's what makes things cheaper in the good way. When it's the reverse - wages outpacing productivity, you get inflation. Good thing for you I'm an economic genius because you don't know shit about economics. And if someone is always willing to work for less then wages would approach zero, or at least the minimum wage but we have barely over a million people in this country earning the minimum wage, as you pointed out most make much more than that.

The market sets wages, but not pensions. Got it.
 
yes the market sets wages... and the market is efficient because we know workers have equal bargaining power with their employers, both sides have perfect knowledge of all the risks of employment, and workers have no costs of relocation or with moving from job to job.

Employers never do anything like cut corners on safety, steal wages, disguise OT as regular time, etc. and if they did, it wouldn't matter since all employees - even Walmart greeters - can afford to hire attorneys to sue for the lost wages.

see? that's how it all works in the Real World spartanhack, & Americans for Prosperity live in. it's so fucking simple anyone can understand it.
 
I understand that the market sets market wages, but that's because you can always find someone will to work for a little bit less. tea party genius Michelle bachman advocates getting rid of the minimum wage as a way to wipe out unemployment, since they could then hire people to work for $2 or whatever they wanted to pay. I understand that you'd love to see higher corporate profits and labor basically indentured servants, but I don't think that's really the path to prosperity.

of course you're an inflation hawk too, you can't go too far without some conservative economist talking about this great inflation threat that never happens. yes prices rise but for the most part it's due to spikes in gas prices and food costs. I think it just comes from the conservative idea that the government should never seek to mitigate any economic pain.

Again, stupid. Nobody is forcing anyone to work - if your skills are worth more than $2, you won't take the job and if the employer can't find anyone whose skills are worth just $2 and the value to the employer is more than $2, he'll have to pay more or he won't find someone to do the work. The idea that employers get whatever they want and enslave workers without unions or a minimum wage is asinine and frankly, insulting to the American laborer.

You understand nothing about my position. I want to have free markets where labor and capital are allocated efficiently and those as well as product markets clear efficiently and there are no perverse incentives that disrupt that balance creating inflation, higher unemployment and other economic and social ills. It's a known fact which I know you love to ignore (you actually have to in order to support your positions) that nothing in recorded history has lifted more people out of poverty than liberty and free market capitalism. Even liberals like Bono and the staunchest advocate for the poor, the Pope have both acknowledged that. I do believe that the profit motive is a far more noble and genuine one than whatever is behind your socialist policies that do nothing but perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
 
Last edited:
Holding my own? I feel like Billy Madison playing dodgeball. Although, I have to admit I was wrong about Gulo and have learned to like him and appreciate his perspective even when I don't agree. And 2 of my 5 siblings are wolverines (the rest Spartans) - I also root for Michigan when they're not playing MSU.

I would rather you had allies in this thread and others, but I have registered and posted on rightwing-dominated websites such as Townhall, Red State, and Free Republic, the last of which, I got "zotted" in less than a day..lol.
 
I would rather you had allies in this thread and others, but I have registered and posted on rightwing-dominated websites such as Townhall, Red State, and Free Republic, the last of which, I got "zotted" in less than a day..lol.

Ha - thankfully, I'm not here out of a need for affirmation. This is the only political site I visit - only sports site for that matter too so I have no idea so what "zotted" means but I assume they weren't "showing you the love".
 
Again, stupid. Nobody is forcing anyone to work - if your skills are worth more than $2, you won't take the job and if the employer can't find anyone whose skills are worth just $2 and the value to the employer is more than $2, he'll have to pay more or he won't find someone to do the work. The idea that employers get whatever they want and enslave workers without unions or a minimum wage is asinine and frankly, insulting to the American laborer.

You understand nothing about my position. I want to have free markets where labor and capital are allocated efficiently and those as well as product markets clear efficiently and there are no perverse incentives that disrupt that balance creating inflation, higher unemployment and other economic and social ills. It's a known fact which I know you love to ignore (you actually have to in order to support your positions) that nothing in recorded history has lifted more people out of poverty than liberty and free market capitalism. Even liberals like Bono and the staunchest advocate for the poor, the Pope have both acknowledged that. I do believe that the profit motive is a far more noble and genuine one than whatever is behind your socialist policies that do nothing but perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

Free market capitalism is great, but it takes governance to keep it free and to avoid certain pitfalls. When one thing does well in an economy, it suppresses all other things that can be traded between nations (via the strengthening the dollar.) The US has a number of wildly successful industries, notably banking and technology development, that only a small segment of the population can participate in. In the extreme, nations have seen this happen with natural resources and they called it Dutch Disease. Should a nation with Dutch Disease blindly stick to free market principles?
 
Again, stupid. Nobody is forcing anyone to work - if your skills are worth more than $2, you won't take the job and if the employer can't find anyone whose skills are worth just $2 and the value to the employer is more than $2, he'll have to pay more or he won't find someone to do the work. The idea that employers get whatever they want and enslave workers without unions or a minimum wage is asinine and frankly, insulting to the American laborer.

You understand nothing about my position. I want to have free markets where labor and capital are allocated efficiently and those as well as product markets clear efficiently and there are no perverse incentives that disrupt that balance creating inflation, higher unemployment and other economic and social ills. It's a known fact which I know you love to ignore (you actually have to in order to support your positions) that nothing in recorded history has lifted more people out of poverty than liberty and free market capitalism. Even liberals like Bono and the staunchest advocate for the poor, the Pope have both acknowledged that. I do believe that the profit motive is a far more noble and genuine one than whatever is behind your socialist policies that do nothing but perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

the profit motive is good overall, i'm a capitalist as well even though you want to label me as something else. Is free market capitalism free of regulation? hell no, otherwise we'd all be paying 5x as much for our phone bills. I believe in workers rights, the ability to bargain collectively and for labor to have a voice.

these arguments are really just about distributional conflict, the fight over what share of output should go to wages vs ownership is at the heart of it. how should income be divided between labor and capital?

I personally am sick and tired of subsidizing corporate profits through social programs when employers don't pay a living wage. the largest employer in the country is walmart and if the walton family isn't going to pay their employees enough to live on then we're going to have to subsidize it with our taxes. I'm kind of sick helping profitable companies pay their employees
 
the profit motive is good overall, i'm a capitalist as well even though you want to label me as something else. Is free market capitalism free of regulation? hell no, otherwise we'd all be paying 5x as much for our phone bills. I believe in workers rights, the ability to bargain collectively and for labor to have a voice.

these arguments are really just about distributional conflict, the fight over what share of output should go to wages vs ownership is at the heart of it. how should income be divided between labor and capital?

I personally am sick and tired of subsidizing corporate profits through social programs when employers don't pay a living wage. the largest employer in the country is walmart and if the walton family isn't going to pay their employees enough to live on then we're going to have to subsidize it with our taxes. I'm kind of sick helping profitable companies pay their employees

Its a sign of the times that we live in (at least here in SE MI) when commercial TV is dominated by ads from drug companies, reverse-mortgages, law firms, and fast-food restaurants.
 
Last edited:
Its a sign of the times that we live in (at least here in SE MI) when commercial TV is dominated by ads from drug companies, reverse-mortgages, law firms, and fast-food restaurants.

That's sad.

On a different but advertising-related note, watch Fox News for an hour or listen to Rush's radio show. It's clear those advertisers have a low opinion of their target audiences.
 
That's sad.

On a different but advertising-related note, watch Fox News for an hour or listen to Rush's radio show. It's clear those advertisers have a low opinion of their target audiences.

I'll take your word for it
 
I'll take your word for it

All ads for cash for gold, investment schemes with the pitch being impending economic collapse (due to Obama's policies of course), viagra/cialis, hoverounds, old-people stair climbers, or sometimes even complete snake oil products.

it's entertaining hearing a host rant about the need to downsize government, while his advertisers are pitching that their products are 100% covered by Medicare... and all fail to appreciate the irony of the situation. But I'm sure if you pointed it out to them, they'd start babbling about Benghazi, Socialism, Obama, Bill Clinton.
 
Here's a salon article that makes some other points that haven't been mentioned here about the Bankruptcy Settlement:
-?This is a settlement. This not a bailout,? [Governor] Snyder said. ?And I want to be very, very clear about that.?

- But some Michigan Republicans are tuning out the dog-whistling and Koch-whining. Foundations and arts benefactors have pledged $466 million for the deal, while the United Auto Workers and the Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council have pledged to contribute to the settlement. That has won over Republicans who said they?d oppose the deal unless unions coughed up money too.

- The vote could come as early as Thursday. The GOP House Speaker Pro Tem John Walsh (no relation) believes he has the votes to at least get the bill to the state Senate, arguing the deal saves the state money in the long run. ?We have conservative estimates that if we can?t reach settlement and there are more cuts to pensioners, the state will realize over 20 years over $250 million in social safety costs,? Walsh told reporters. ?These are people that will fall into the social safety net, because we?re not talking about wealthy people at all. We?re talking about people who are barely making it.?​
It appears the Koch's and AFP simply want to screw over pensioners because they were in unions at some point, and of course unions are bad... socialist... communist even... Evil... the work of Satan.
 
Back
Top