Why I can't be both an economist and a liberal.

[RoswellGAHokie]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/ ... nd-liberal

[chuckd4vt]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/ ... nd-liberal

Well that's about as awful an article as it gets. First of all, unemployment is not the only measure of the strength of an economy or a society. Yes, a raise in the min wage would result in job losses. However, the tens of millions of folks who would receive more income will benefit tremendously. In fact, a raise in minimum wage would result in less overall government assistance. The ones who receive help, will require more. But the working poor will require far far less, or in many cases none. The CBO is pretty clear about that.


And I have little idea why this guy takes jabs at environmental policies and anti-gender discrimination efforts. What the heck does economics have to do with either. Of course it would be cheaper for the government to ignore both issues. It would also be cheaper for the government to ignore Iraq or ignore international natural disasters too. How on earth can an economist support conservative policies that call for more defense spending and use? That rightchair is bizzar.

Also, what does he know about efforts to have China become more environmentally friendly? So if another guy takes a dump in the public drinking water, it's OK for everybody else to do so too? What kinda logic is that? And what idiot thinks that technologies develped here wouldn't find their way to China? It may take a while, but the Chinese benefit from a healthy and clean planet and air supply too. I don't expect their cities to be as clean as ours anytime in the next 50 years, but they will eventually chip in, especially if there's cheaper and more effective ways to do so.

[chuckd4vt]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/ ... nd-liberal

Well that's about as awful an article as it gets. First of all, unemployment is not the only measure of the strength of an economy or a society. Yes, a raise in the min wage would result in job losses. However, the tens of millions of folks who would receive more income will benefit tremendously. In fact, a raise in minimum wage would result in less overall government assistance. The ones who receive help, will require more. But the working poor will require far far less, or in many cases none. The CBO is pretty clear about that.


And I have little idea why this guy takes jabs at environmental policies and anti-gender discrimination efforts. What the heck does economics have to do with either. Of course it would be cheaper for the government to ignore both issues. It would also be cheaper for the government to ignore Iraq or ignore international natural disasters too. How on earth can an economist support conservative policies that call for more defense spending and use? That rightchair is bizzar.

Also, what does he know about efforts to have China become more environmentally friendly? So if another guy takes a dump in the public drinking water, it's OK for everybody else to do so too? What kinda logic is that? And what idiot thinks that technologies develped here wouldn't find their way to China? It may take a while, but the Chinese benefit from a healthy and clean planet and air supply too. I don't expect their cities to be as clean as ours anytime in the next 50 years, but they will eventually chip in, especially if there's cheaper and more effective ways to do so.

And BTW, it seems MOST leading economists believe Obama's economic stimulus plan was a good thing.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic- ... LNJL1oz4Xi

Almost all agree it helped when it comes to unemployment and MOST think (all things considered) it was worth it.

[USN_Hokie]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/ ... nd-liberal

Well that's about as awful an article as it gets. First of all, unemployment is not the only measure of the strength of an economy or a society. Yes, a raise in the min wage would result in job losses. However, the tens of millions of folks who would receive more income will benefit tremendously. In fact, a raise in minimum wage would result in less overall government assistance. The ones who receive help, will require more. But the working poor will require far far less, or in many cases none. The CBO is pretty clear about that.


And I have little idea why this guy takes jabs at environmental policies and anti-gender discrimination efforts. What the heck does economics have to do with either. Of course it would be cheaper for the government to ignore both issues. It would also be cheaper for the government to ignore Iraq or ignore international natural disasters too. How on earth can an economist support conservative policies that call for more defense spending and use? That rightchair is bizzar.

Also, what does he know about efforts to have China become more environmentally friendly? So if another guy takes a dump in the public drinking water, it's OK for everybody else to do so too? What kinda logic is that? And what idiot thinks that technologies develped here wouldn't find their way to China? It may take a while, but the Chinese benefit from a healthy and clean planet and air supply too. I don't expect their cities to be as clean as ours anytime in the next 50 years, but they will eventually chip in, especially if there's cheaper and more effective ways to do so.

I was going to address your post point-by-point until I got to the bolded text. If you have no idea then it's pretty useless trying to explain any of the rest to you.

[USN_Hokie]

And BTW, it seems MOST leading economists believe Obama's economic stimulus plan was a good thing.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic- ... LNJL1oz4Xi

Almost all agree it helped when it comes to unemployment and MOST think (all things considered) it was worth it.

Of course, your link says nothing of the sort....but you probably knew that.

[RiverguyVT]

without reading the article, but just the headline, the hypothesis seems VERY plausible.

[UpstateSCHokie]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/ ... nd-liberal

Solid piece. Thanks for posting. Makes too much sense for libs to understand.

[Marine Hokie]

So you want to redistribute the wealth from some poor people to other poor people?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/ ... nd-liberal

Well that's about as awful an article as it gets. First of all, unemployment is not the only measure of the strength of an economy or a society. Yes, a raise in the min wage would result in job losses. However, the tens of millions of folks who would receive more income will benefit tremendously. In fact, a raise in minimum wage would result in less overall government assistance. The ones who receive help, will require more. But the working poor will require far far less, or in many cases none. The CBO is pretty clear about that.


And I have little idea why this guy takes jabs at environmental policies and anti-gender discrimination efforts. What the heck does economics have to do with either. Of course it would be cheaper for the government to ignore both issues. It would also be cheaper for the government to ignore Iraq or ignore international natural disasters too. How on earth can an economist support conservative policies that call for more defense spending and use? That rightchair is bizzar.

Also, what does he know about efforts to have China become more environmentally friendly? So if another guy takes a dump in the public drinking water, it's OK for everybody else to do so too? What kinda logic is that? And what idiot thinks that technologies develped here wouldn't find their way to China? It may take a while, but the Chinese benefit from a healthy and clean planet and air supply too. I don't expect their cities to be as clean as ours anytime in the next 50 years, but they will eventually chip in, especially if there's cheaper and more effective ways to do so.

[chuckd4vt]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/ ... nd-liberal

Well that's about as awful an article as it gets. First of all, unemployment is not the only measure of the strength of an economy or a society. Yes, a raise in the min wage would result in job losses. However, the tens of millions of folks who would receive more income will benefit tremendously. In fact, a raise in minimum wage would result in less overall government assistance. The ones who receive help, will require more. But the working poor will require far far less, or in many cases none. The CBO is pretty clear about that.


And I have little idea why this guy takes jabs at environmental policies and anti-gender discrimination efforts. What the heck does economics have to do with either. Of course it would be cheaper for the government to ignore both issues. It would also be cheaper for the government to ignore Iraq or ignore international natural disasters too. How on earth can an economist support conservative policies that call for more defense spending and use? That rightchair is bizzar.

Also, what does he know about efforts to have China become more environmentally friendly? So if another guy takes a dump in the public drinking water, it's OK for everybody else to do so too? What kinda logic is that? And what idiot thinks that technologies develped here wouldn't find their way to China? It may take a while, but the Chinese benefit from a healthy and clean planet and air supply too. I don't expect their cities to be as clean as ours anytime in the next 50 years, but they will eventually chip in, especially if there's cheaper and more effective ways to do so.

I was going to address your post point-by-point until I got to the bolded text. If you have no idea then it's pretty useless trying to explain any of the rest to you.

I suppose I should have said that in the bigger picture, why does this guy bring up things like environmentalism and anti discrimination efforts? OF COURSE such things are going to cost us money and not be profitable, at least not in the short term. But that doesn't mean we should neglect doing them. I do environmentally friendly things on a personal level that aren't financially profitable, but that doesn't mean I should stop doing them. I do all sorts of things that I don't financially profit from. One needn't be an economist to recognize the "positive externalities" related to such things. One can be a liberal, which is code for giving a dang about the interests of others for this guy, and still understand economics. So why do we care what this guy thinks about the environment or anti discrimination efforts? Or why does he think we care?


And yes, I do recognize the relatively small impact environmental policies/issues have on the overall economy and I recognize the same when it comes to anti-discrimination issues. But nobody ever suggested doing those things would be financially rewarding. But most do feel society is better off for them, even if they do cost us money.

[USN_Hokie]

You're just speaking in platitudes now. Let me know if you want to discuss the actual content of the piece.

BTW, Morici is a professor at UMD and he speaks on the radio show i listen to occasionally. He's not a RWNJ by any means.

[chuckd4vt]

You're just speaking in platitudes now. Let me know if you want to discuss the actual content of the piece.

BTW, Morici is a professor at UMD and he speaks on the radio show i listen to occasionally. He's not a RWNJ by any means.

So a UMC professor is your hero and all the MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford professors in the link I provided who mostly felt the economic stimulus plan was a worthwhile endeavor know nothing?

The piece seems to be telling us that because two liberal issues (issues that I would like to add only indirectly impact our economy), no liberals should be economists. Even most liberals don't argue we should be concerned with the environment and discrimination because of their impact on the economy. We assume such things will probably cost us money. We just think the costs are worth it.

He should really be asking about all the money we flush down the drain on defense and whether or not that is worth it. How can warhawks be economists? BTW, who were the guys who told us the Iraq War would benefit us financially? Weren't we to have first dibs on all that Iraqi oil and use that to pay for our invasion and occupation?

[USN_Hokie]

So a UMC professor is your hero and all the MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford professors in the link I provided who mostly felt the economic stimulus plan was a worthwhile endeavor know nothing?

1. I'm not sure you read my post, or the link you provided.

2. The ARRA wasn't even mentioned in this article - why do you keep citing this which have nothing to do with the topic?

The piece seems to be telling us that because two liberal issues (issues that I would like to add only indirectly impact our economy), no liberals should be economists. Even most liberals don't argue we should be concerned with the environment and discrimination because of their impact on the economy. We assume such things will probably cost us money. We just think the costs are worth it.

Your sentences here don't make any sense. Would you like to try again?

He should really be asking about all the money we flush down the drain on defense and whether or not that is worth it. How can warhawks be economists? BTW, who were the guys who told us the Iraq War would benefit us financially? Weren't we to have first dibs on all that Iraqi oil and use that to pay for our invasion and occupation?

Oh look, more nonsense. Are you telling us that you supported the Iraq war under the premise that we would essentially turn the country into a colony and force them to sell us oil at an favorable rate? I don't remember anyone saying that, btw.

[WestEndHokie39]

chuck, liberals argue on faith and emotion when it comes to economics. Your faith in beliefs that fly in the face of reason, logic, and evidence, and not only hurt our society financially, but socially as well. Your statement about minimum wage I find morally repugnant- you would willingly throw more people on the government dole in order to help a much smaller segment of people.

All I have to do is contrast the posts of Marine Hokie, usn hoke, and bulab (when he posted here), and the ones of yours and recip to see which ones are grounded in the real world.

[chuckd4vt]

chuck, liberals argue on faith and emotion when it comes to economics. Your faith in beliefs that fly in the face of reason, logic, and evidence, and not only hurt our society financially, but socially as well. Your statement about minimum wage I find morally repugnant- you would willingly throw more people on the government dole in order to help a much smaller segment of people.

All I have to do is contrast the posts of Marine Hokie, usn hoke, and bulab (when he posted here), and the ones of yours and recip to see which ones are grounded in the real world.

A) the CBO tells us people would overall require less government assistance with a rise in the min. wage. LESS GOVERNMENT MONEY WILL BE DOLED OUT.

B) the number of folks who would benefit (directly) by an increase in min wage exceeds by 10 the number of folks who are projected to lose their jobs.

[chuckd4vt]

So a UMC professor is your hero and all the MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford professors in the link I provided who mostly felt the economic stimulus plan was a worthwhile endeavor know nothing?

1. I'm not sure you read my post, or the link you provided.

2. The ARRA wasn't even mentioned in this article - why do you keep citing this which have nothing to do with the topic?

The piece seems to be telling us that because two liberal issues (issues that I would like to add only indirectly impact our economy), no liberals should be economists. Even most liberals don't argue we should be concerned with the environment and discrimination because of their impact on the economy. We assume such things will probably cost us money. We just think the costs are worth it.

Your sentences here don't make any sense. Would you like to try again?

He should really be asking about all the money we flush down the drain on defense and whether or not that is worth it. How can warhawks be economists? BTW, who were the guys who told us the Iraq War would benefit us financially? Weren't we to have first dibs on all that Iraqi oil and use that to pay for our invasion and occupation?

Oh look, more nonsense. Are you telling us that you supported the Iraq war under the premise that we would essentially turn the country into a colony and force them to sell us oil at an favorable rate? I don't remember anyone saying that, btw.

I remember MANY warhawks telling us Iraqi oil would help to pay for our invasion and occupation there. MANY. I supported it because I was very young and actually believed in our President. I grew up, I began to care more for others, and I realized the deadly and trillion dollar lies I had been told. I am still a recovering Conservative due to it.

[Marine Hokie]

If you could press a magic button, and have 90% of Walmart cashiers get a pay raise, while 10% of them lose their jobs, would you press it?
What about 95%/5%? 70%/30%? 50%/50%?

A) the CBO tells us people would overall require less government assistance with a rise in the min. wage. LESS GOVERNMENT MONEY WILL BE DOLED OUT.

B) the number of folks who would benefit (directly) by an increase in min wage exceeds by 10 the number of folks who are projected to lose their jobs.

[HokieJoe]

Oh Chuck. By his own words, Morici is an AGW believer, and yet, he is telling us why the solutions offered are the dreams of naive idiots.

The erosion of the Antarctic ice shelf and glaciers elsewhere should confirm to even casual observers that global temperatures are rising. Scientists arguing that CO2 emissions contribute to this are not quacks but their prescriptions, and those of the president, have a naïve quality bordering on willful and malicious ignorance.

The new abundance of natural gas and market forces are already rapidly driving down U.S. CO2 emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities. A forced acceleration imposed by the EPA would cost billions of dollars and make economic and environmental problems worse.

With an economy half the size of the United States, China emits almost twice as much CO2. Raising costs for U.S. manufactures though the president’s program will only send jobs to China, where industrial production is dirtier, and increase global emissions.

Liberals argue that by setting a good example the United States can bring China along.

Nonsense! American diplomats have not been able to get Beijing to respond on its undervalued currency or protectionism generally, abandon the use of force to settle territorial disputes in the China seas, or anything else the Chinese Communist Party sees as impairing economic growth or its quest to wrest leadership from the United States on global economic and security issues.

[chuckd4vt]

If you could press a magic button, and have 90% of Walmart cashiers get a pay raise, while 10% of them lose their jobs, would you press it?
What about 95%/5%? 70%/30%? 50%/50%?

A) the CBO tells us people would overall require less government assistance with a rise in the min. wage. LESS GOVERNMENT MONEY WILL BE DOLED OUT.

B) the number of folks who would benefit (directly) by an increase in min wage exceeds by 10 the number of folks who are projected to lose their jobs.

I wouldn't wish to be in control like that. But I suppose I would. While a couple dollars more per hour isn't a big deal to some, it's a life changing and life altering deal to someone making minimum wage. It's about a 50% raise for someone making $7/hour actually. Also, even those persons making between $10-$15 dollars/hr would likely receive a bump of a dollar or two. So if as the CBO projects, and tens of millions of folks receive life altering raises, rasises that would take tens of millions off of government assistance, then the loss of less that a million jobs is worth it IMO. This is of course assuming safety nets are involved that would prevent those jobless persons from starving, going without healthcare, or going without shelter. Myself and the CBO realize tjat would be the case. And on the personal level, working for $7/hr doesn't put a person in much better a position than being fullly provided for by the government. On the individual level, those persons might just be better off focusing on things like earning GEDs, taking college course, caring for children or elderly parents, volunteering at a local church, etc... while looking for work.

[HokieFanDC]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/ ... nd-liberal

Well that's about as awful an article as it gets. First of all, unemployment is not the only measure of the strength of an economy or a society. Yes, a raise in the min wage would result in job losses. However, the tens of millions of folks who would receive more income will benefit tremendously. In fact, a raise in minimum wage would result in less overall government assistance. The ones who receive help, will require more. But the working poor will require far far less, or in many cases none. The CBO is pretty clear about that.


And I have little idea why this guy takes jabs at environmental policies and anti-gender discrimination efforts. What the heck does economics have to do with either. Of course it would be cheaper for the government to ignore both issues. It would also be cheaper for the government to ignore Iraq or ignore international natural disasters too. How on earth can an economist support conservative policies that call for more defense spending and use? That rightchair is bizzar.

Also, what does he know about efforts to have China become more environmentally friendly? So if another guy takes a dump in the public drinking water, it's OK for everybody else to do so too? What kinda logic is that? And what idiot thinks that technologies develped here wouldn't find their way to China? It may take a while, but the Chinese benefit from a healthy and clean planet and air supply too. I don't expect their cities to be as clean as ours anytime in the next 50 years, but they will eventually chip in, especially if there's cheaper and more effective ways to do so.

I think you should have stopped reading when he said the economics should be based on facts. Economics is a social science based on multiple factors and interactions that render any proclamation, something far short of "facts".

[Major Kong]

FTR I rate economist on the same footing as Hari Seldon.