-
More or less, yes. The problem however is to convince people of this fact. The problem also is that in such situations the government will actively oppress attempts to ship goods into the affected areas. And , the government has actively been involved in the impoverishment of a good portion of the people who, when the shock of a disaster hits, sees
-
[quote user="thompsonisland"]Anyway, they would all still have jobs regardless of who is in office. I don't think they care whether they are reporting on something meaningful intellectually, or utterly vacuous.[/quote] They'd still have jobs. But going by what was going on when I left school and from what I've heard and seen since
-
I disagree. Paul will not destroy the debate, he will widen it. The problems people propose to solve by waving the magic wand of government will not disappear with the end of government intervention. The desperately poor will not magically become rich, the diseased will not be cured. Paul proposes a framework in which people find their own solutions
-
The only reason US workers would be losers is if the government chokes off opportunity here for their reemployment. So yes, until opportunity is sufficiently stifled in other markets so that the US again becomes competitive, Us workers will suffer. That's completely avoidable: stop stifling opportunity at home.
-
That is the practical truth of the matter, Jeckyl. Minimum wage is a weird issue though. Given the affects of inflation and other market distortions the effects of the minimum wage hikes we see are really minimal for most people, because most people aren't operating at the margins where it does make a difference. But, to expand on what I wrote in
-
To be blunt, there really is no debating with people who deny the very basics of economics. The law of demand isn't debatable. That doesn't mean you can't say the effects would be negligible, or off set by this or that, or ethical/moral/desirable and so 'worth it' overall if you want to bring in normative judgements. But if you deny
-
Here is a good article on the point: http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1035 . As to your specifics, they seem kind of vague. To the last point for consumer protection from bad products look to the existence of Underwriter's Labs as an example of how the market answers such 'failures'. It's not a question of whether or not people will
-
As well he might not see such a direct result. You can't tell where unemployment will hit, nor can you tell whether or not the hike in wages is being outpaced by demand at any given moment. If a state hikes its minimum wage and this mainly affects people in a certain industry whose product enjoys a relatively inelastic demand, people will economize