Which Political Philosophy Annoys You Most and Why?

[Esuric]

@Student

actually, you just never understood my original position. you kept jumping trying to make connections between my economic arguments and my political beliefs

Your initial assertion:

@Student

if you have a situation where there is only one major employer in your area (factory towns say), then the employer could potentially nagotiate wages below those that would result from a more comepetitive labor market. this implies that setting a minimum wage above that amount could actually INCREASE employment and in a net welfare improvement…life is more complicated than micro 101. and minimum wages need not always result in unemployment (in either theory or practice).

My response:

@Esuric

It is true that limited geographical competition may lead to temporary disequilibria in the labor market, but it is also true that such a condition would yield supernormal profits for capital within that region. The supernormal profits that are earned would draw capital investment towards this geographical area, which, in turn, would elevate the productivity of labor (output) and therefore real wages.

You then admit that you do not support minimum wage laws:

@Student

..for instance, i never said i would support a minimum wage (because i don’t)

And then go on to say:

@Student

…on the other hand, some austrian economists first find the conclusion that fits their politics and then work backwards to get their argument (ignoring all possibilities where their argument may fail, if they notice them at all)… anyways it is obvious we don’t need to continue this conversation further. you already have the answers (governments always fail to allocate resources efficiently, markets always succeed)…

The only thing you seem to support is extreme ambiguity, and you continuously play the “you’re too ideological” card whenever someone challenges your assertions.

The entire conversation can be found here: Card & Krueger