Remember me
▼ Content

The Global Warming Fraud



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
17-08-2019 11:35
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
Into the Night wrote:
Trumps campaign. Not mine. Quote it correctly.


Trump is 73 and loves to talk so there is a lot there certainly. You could probably find both sides of most big issues!

If he retracts his own statements, says he didn't mean to say something, that is his choice. But not yours. You can just choose to believe him or not.

The commercial is his and he stands by it. It's very clear and to the point.

You are incorrect and unqualified to say he didn't mean what he said.
Edited on 17-08-2019 11:36
17-08-2019 17:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
tmiddles wrote:The commercial is his and he stands by it.

You are clearly trying to own the commercial and pretending to speak for the people who saw it and understood it.

Trump's message was one of security for the country, not one of racism and bigotry as the gullible have been tooled into regurgitating.

You are incorrect and manipulated. Trump meant every word that got him elected. None of his supporters are denying what he said, only his detractors continue to this day to distort his message that still stands.

How is your distortion of Trump's message working out for you? ... aside from giving you a severe case of TDS?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-08-2019 18:12
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1154)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Trumps campaign. Not mine. Quote it correctly.


Trump is 73 and loves to talk so there is a lot there certainly. You could probably find both sides of most big issues!

If he retracts his own statements, says he didn't mean to say something, that is his choice. But not yours. You can just choose to believe him or not.

The commercial is his and he stands by it. It's very clear and to the point.

You are incorrect and unqualified to say he didn't mean what he said.


The thing about Trump, is that he says what is on his mind. He'll throw ideas out there, before he's discussed it with anyone else, or studied into it too deeply. He's extremely open about a lot of things. Most politicians don't do that, but love taking advantage of it. You'll notice that they pretty much always read any public statements, which were pretty obviously prepared by someone else, as the are reading it word for word. Trump doesn't take the time to think about how people might interpret, or misuse what he was thinking at the time, and careful phrase everything perfectly. Politicians rarely go off script either, they stick entirely on the material prepared for them. When ask questions, their response is exactly the same, sometimes the reword it a little, but doesn't vary much from what they have been reading. Trump goes off script all the time, he uses his prepared matter as notes, probably skips a bunch of it, and gives his interpretation of what was written for him. Trump does often make mistakes with facts and figures, since he doesn't do, or have somebody go in depth, and dig out the precise numbers, or the key facts before he says anything. Mostly, he's go on things he sees in the media, the 'fake news', online, and just a single, or few sources. He might be wrong, or a little off, but it's still relevant, since many other people saw the same things, and had a similar reaction.
18-08-2019 01:48
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
The thing about some of these things that people are grumbling about -i read in the AARP magazine that for every dollar that the govt spends in the US, it collects 98 cents in taxes. I think that is because when money gets dispersed it get spent and respent several times. The govt takes in taxes on all that spending and receiving. Where does this phenomenon end - i don't know but i know that economics is greatly misunderstood. In some cases i don't think the economist understand. I sure don't.
That thing about 98 cents taxes collected for every govt dollar dispersed.
I think the export of dollars to foreign countries and the balance of trade (deficit) is part of the phenomenon. I think the world economy could easily gobble many, many dollars without any significant inflation. Besides inflation is dormant these days.
18-08-2019 02:12
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1154)
keepit wrote:
The thing about some of these things that people are grumbling about -i read in the AARP magazine that for every dollar that the govt spends in the US, it collects 98 cents in taxes. I think that is because when money gets dispersed it get spent and respent several times. The govt takes in taxes on all that spending and receiving. Where does this phenomenon end - i don't know but i know that economics is greatly misunderstood. In some cases i don't think the economist understand. I sure don't.
That thing about 98 cents taxes collected for every govt dollar dispersed.
I think the export of dollars to foreign countries and the balance of trade (deficit) is part of the phenomenon. I think the world economy could easily gobble many, many dollars without any significant inflation. Besides inflation is dormant these days.


Economics use to be simpler, but not so much anymore. Most businesses aren't single owner any more, most sell stocks to investors, who expect a return (share of the profits). Ownership gets even more complicated, where the majority stock owner, is another company, which actually is owned by another company. It's pretty easy to manipulate price and value, to maximize profits.

Pretty sure our government is spending way more than a dollar, for ever 98 cents collected in taxes, specially during the Obama presidency...

What I do know, is that if I spend my time working, I expect to be fully compensated for my time, and energy expend on the job. I should be able to decide how that paycheck get spent, not the government.
18-08-2019 02:17
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
Harvey, What makes you think the govt spends more than a dollar for every 98 cents?
My guess is that it collects more than a dollar for every extra dollar it disberses. It is mysterious though.
18-08-2019 02:24
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1154)
keepit wrote:
Harvey, What makes you think the govt spends more than a dollar for every 98 cents?
My guess is that it collects more than a dollar for every extra dollar it disberses. It is mysterious though.


The national debt keeps climbing, at an alarming rate... We spend more than we are taking in, a lot more, not just a few billion here and there occasionally either. The socialist party wants to spend a lot more. Tell you, I'll spend less, proportionally, to our government spending less. Lead by example...
18-08-2019 02:36
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
Harvey,
You make a legitimate point.
It's all very mysterious to me. I think wiki is more accurate at science than govt accounting is. I can't back it up though.
It's like the trade deficit - for the last 45 years i've been hearing that there is a negative trade deficit (except for maybe 1 or 2 months). I don't understand how that can be except that we export dollars and get stuff in return. The dollars get spread around the rest of the world and we don't have to account for them. The world economy is growing in total greater than ours so i think there is room out there for dollars.
I'm getting into stuff i don't really understand here though.
18-08-2019 02:38
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
Harvey,
There are democratic socialists trying to run the country. I don't know of any actual socialists that have a serious chance of getting any control.
18-08-2019 04:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
keepit wrote:Harvey,
There are democratic socialists trying to run the country. I don't know of any actual socialists that have a serious chance of getting any control.

keepit, there is no difference between "socialism" and "democratic socialism."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-08-2019 04:20
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
IBdaMann wrote:
How is your distortion of Trump's message working out for you?


How did I distort it? ITN said he never even attempted to ban Muslims, the commercial has him calling for a ban on Muslims.

Explain exactly how I'm getting that wrong.
18-08-2019 04:25
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The thing about Trump, ....He'll throw ideas out there,


Yes true.

Now if I said: On 2/22/17 Trump signed bill H.R. 666 which banned Muslims from the US for 6 weeks. You could call me a liar. Because that didn't happen.

If I say: Trump never called for Muslims to be banned from the country. You could also call me a liar because that did happen.

You see facts exist. It doesn't matter how many times you call a fact "fake news" or "spin" it's still there being a fact.
18-08-2019 04:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
tmiddles wrote:Explain exactly how I'm getting that wrong.

At no point did Trump call for Islam to be banned.

Trump's message was all about vetting people who wanted to enter the US. You deny that. You insist his message was one of bigotry and racism.

That's how you get it wrong ... and it's intentional on your part. You will not listen to a single person who tries to explain it to you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-08-2019 04:39
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
I'm just winging it here but as i understand it socialism is where there is a dictatorial head of govt that has mostly socialistic programs and democratic socialism is where there is an elected leader of a country that has a FEW socialist programs .
18-08-2019 05:05
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Explain exactly how I'm getting that wrong.

At no point did Trump call for Islam to be banned.

Trump's message was all about vetting people who wanted to enter the US. You deny that. You insist his message was one of bigotry and racism.

That's how you get it wrong ... and it's intentional on your part. You will not listen to a single person who tries to explain it to you.


.


Now see you're making up what I said. It's easy to quote on here so do it.

Trump made a commercial that said he was calling from a ban on Muslim's entering the country for some indefinite period of time ("until we figure out what's going on"). He didn't call for the Muslim's in the country to be expelled, or for the religion of Islam to be illegal in the US. (that I know of).

The commercial stands on it's own. It's a FACT. I didn't quote it inaccurately or misscharacterize it.

ITN said he never tried to ban Muslims and the commercial shows that is a false statement.
18-08-2019 05:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
keepit wrote:I'm just winging it here but as i understand it socialism is where there is a dictatorial head of govt that has mostly socialistic programs and democratic socialism is where there is an elected leader of a country that has a FEW socialist programs .

In a word, no.

You hit the nail on the head when you noted that no socialist has a chance of being elected ... so party leaders are insisting that there is a HUGE difference between socialism and democratic socialism ... but as you can see below they are one in the same. You understand the full concern about the stigma surrounding the word "socialist" which is illuminated at the bottom of this post.

From the Socialist Party USA Platform:We are committed to the transformation of capitalism through the creation of a democratic socialist society based on compassion, empathy, and respect as well as the development of new social structures.


From the Socialist Party USA Platform:Only a global transformation from capitalism to democratic socialism will provide the conditions for international peace, justice, and economic cooperation based on the large-scale transfer of resources and technology from the developed to the developing countries.


Of course you could just read the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America how they are socialists:

From the Democratic Socialists of America:At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people.


From the Democratic Socialists of America:We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.


From the Democratic Socialists of America:If so many people misunderstand socialism, why continue to use the word?
First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as "socialized medicine" and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the "S word," politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.






.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-08-2019 06:09
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
So what do you call dictatorial countries that have almost completely socialistic programs?
18-08-2019 07:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
keepit wrote: So what do you call dictatorial countries that have almost completely socialistic programs?

Fascist.

NAZI Germany is a great example. Venezuela is another.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-08-2019 07:18
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1154)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
You make a legitimate point.
It's all very mysterious to me. I think wiki is more accurate at science than govt accounting is. I can't back it up though.
It's like the trade deficit - for the last 45 years i've been hearing that there is a negative trade deficit (except for maybe 1 or 2 months). I don't understand how that can be except that we export dollars and get stuff in return. The dollars get spread around the rest of the world and we don't have to account for them. The world economy is growing in total greater than ours so i think there is room out there for dollars.
I'm getting into stuff i don't really understand here though.


The money we are using to buy stuff from the other countries, isn't making it back home. We aren't selling as much as we are buying, so domestic products aren't selling as well as they should. That means less production, fewer jobs, less taxes collected. Since there are fewer jobs, there are more people in need of public assistance (welfare).

Ideally, we all should be doing our spending, close to home as possible. Our local purchases, support our local economies, our community. It helps people keep their jobs, encourages businesses to hire more employees, also attracts new businesses.
18-08-2019 18:34
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
Harvey,
Like i said i don't really know what i'm talking about here but could it be that the money (printed money) just goes out to the rest of the world and we never see it again but we get to keep the stuff we bought.
I heard there is more american cash outside of the US than there is inside the US.
Edited on 18-08-2019 18:34
18-08-2019 18:36
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
I don't think there's a problem with fewer jobs. We have full employment.
The problem is that automation and cheap foreign labor have made it so there are so many low paying jobs the standard of living for many has decreased.
18-08-2019 18:49
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
Harvey,
If we send bunches of "printed" dollars out to the world to buy stuff and pay off treasuries there will be a lot of dollars out there and then inflation out there. Then the wages around the world will rise and maybe the world will hire us because our labor is cheaper.
Not at all sure this is what we want though. Just a prediction form an unqualified person.
18-08-2019 19:06
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
Harvey,
Is the Australian dollar still pegged to the American dollar?
18-08-2019 19:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
keepit wrote:
I don't think there's a problem with fewer jobs. We have full employment.
The problem is that automation and cheap foreign labor have made it so there are so many low paying jobs the standard of living for many has decreased.

The standard of living in the U.S. has been steadily increasing.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-08-2019 22:23
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
Not relative to the upper levels of society.
There are people working very hard and there many homeless people and yet there are quite a few that have a luxurious standard of living.
If you are referring to averages, so what, it doesn't help the victims of automation and outsourcing.
19-08-2019 02:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
keepit wrote: Not relative to the upper levels of society.

Yes, across the board.

keepit wrote: There are people working very hard and there many homeless people and yet there are quite a few that have a luxurious standard of living.

That has always been the case everywhere throughout the history of humanity.

Nonetheless, in the US, the norm keeps improving. What is considered "poverty" in the US is what many in other countries strive to attain.

keepit wrote: If you are referring to averages, so what, it doesn't help the victims of automation and outsourcing.

You aren't exactly an expert on economics, are you? I don't know any other way to say this but only someone completely indoctrinated into bogus economics would make the error-filled statement you just made.

Frankly, this is an area in which you really should simply trust the judgment of others over your own.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-08-2019 02:48
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1154)
keepit wrote:
I don't think there's a problem with fewer jobs. We have full employment.
The problem is that automation and cheap foreign labor have made it so there are so many low paying jobs the standard of living for many has decreased.


Those 'low paying' jobs, use to be called minimal wage jobs. They didn't require any experience, education, or skills. They were generally high rate of turn over type jobs, since nobody considered them a career choice. People generally took these jobs, like kids earning a few bucks to pimp they 'ride', or save a few bucks for college. Adults took them, when they need a little extra income, to get through some unexpected expenses, or lost their previous job, and just something to get by on, until they find something better. Unfortunately, a lot of full time jobs went overseas, with all those dollars you keep talking about. Obviously, the commute to China, would be more than the paycheck. A lot of adults, now flip burgers, as their primary income. Lot of those minimum wage jobs, have gone to long term employees now, who are demanding high wages, $15.00/hour. That's actually higher than some people have been getting paid, at their full-time, career style job. Jobs, the worked hard at for a decade or more. I don't think the 'living-wage' thing is going to work out though. It'll kill some businesses, eliminating jobs. Least, with few illegal immigrants crossing the border, maybe some of those jobs will become available to legal citizens.

The thing with buying imports, is that people aren't buying the stuff we make domestically as much. A business that can't sell enough product, goes out of business, and they don't keep paying employees.

Even with a new fair trade agreement, it's still going to take years to recover the lost businesses. The ones that closed, were generally sold, equipment sold, or sitting a long time. Cost money to start up a business too. Even with Trump's tariffs, the price isn't going to skyrocket on those imported products, many will still be cheaper to the consumer, some, only slightly more expensive. We would still need to produce, at a lower price, which takes time.
19-08-2019 03:17
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
One thing about minimum wage jobs and the complaints from employers about it.
If an employer is paying wages that are too low, then he or she is ripping off the employees for their time.
If such a business can't exist while paying equitable wages, such a business shouldn't even exist. Let it go out of business and let the business owner get a minimum wage job somewhere and live under a bridge.
Edited on 19-08-2019 03:21
19-08-2019 03:18
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
IBDM,
I'm fairly good at economics. I just don't necessarily believe govt statistics.
I don't think your patronizing comments are going over very well.
Edited on 19-08-2019 03:20
19-08-2019 04:08
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1154)
keepit wrote:
One thing about minimum wage jobs and the complaints from employers about it.
If an employer is paying wages that are too low, then he or she is ripping off the employees for their time.
If such a business can't exist while paying equitable wages, such a business shouldn't even exist. Let it go out of business and let the business owner get a minimum wage job somewhere and live under a bridge.


The government shouldn't decide the wages. An employer will pay what he needs to, to retain enough people to produce his product. He wouldn't have a business, if he could keep employees. You can still keep looking for a better job, while still employed.

So, how would a fast food restaurant operate, if the government were to mandate a $15 minimum wage, about double the current rate? Double the menu prices, shift it to the consumers? Cut the portion sizes in half, but keep the same price? Cheaper, low grade ingredients? Maybe fire half the employees, and let customers wait longer to be served?

Basically, some people might be really happy about getting such a big raise, most everyone else is going to suffer for it. Reduced staff will likely be the number one choice, guess raising the minimum wage, doesn't help those who lose their jobs at all. A crappy, low paying job, is still better than no job at all. Employers on just on the hook for wages either. There's ObamaCare, Workman's Compensation, and a few other expenses for each employee.
19-08-2019 04:13
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
If the employer can't hack paying fair wages the business should change or fold.
19-08-2019 04:24
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
HarveyH55 wrote:So, how would a fast food restaurant operate, if the government were to mandate a $15 minimum wage, about double the current rate? Double the menu prices, shift it to the consumers? Cut the portion sizes in half, but keep the same price? Cheaper, low grade ingredients? Maybe fire half the employees, and let customers wait longer to be served?


Your hypothetical restaurant is at break even apparently. You left out earning a lower profit, investing in automation (What Carrier is doing), or change format ( Some restaurants get away with cafeteria style food service with restaurant prices! ).
19-08-2019 04:30
tmiddles
★★★★☆
(1103)
IBdaMann wrote:
That has always been the case everywhere throughout the history of humanity.

Nonetheless, in the US, the norm keeps improving. What is considered "poverty" in the US is what many in other countries strive to attain.


It's true that "poor" keeps getting an upgrade. It's gone from F$#king Starving, to a shirt on the back, to a home and now you're poor if you can't afford a new kidney.

One thing consistently lacking in the laissez-faire economic models of small government and freedom from regulation is how to deal with unfair competitive practices, monopoly's and corruption.

The "Rich" get far more "well fare" than the poor do if you go by % of wealth taken in taxes, free stuff and money.

But to the first point what really matters is people having what they need and living in a relatively free society and we have both for the most part. (well maybe not a home)
Edited on 19-08-2019 04:31
19-08-2019 04:34
keepit
★★★☆☆
(461)
There are countless people who don't have enough money to live as well as they deserve based on their work productivity.
And also based on their unemployability due to automation and outsourcing.
19-08-2019 05:22
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1382)
keepit wrote:
There are countless people who don't have enough money to live as well as they deserve based on their work productivity.
And also based on their unemployability due to automation and outsourcing.


You keep saying this and I keep seeing job openings all the time for industrial machinery maintenance. When the job market changes, you also adjust.

Absolutely not one single person is unemployable due to automation. People may have lost some jobs due to new technology, but that new tech opens new opportunities. You just won't make money milking cows by hand anymore. You gotta keep up or get left behind.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
19-08-2019 05:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
keepit wrote: IBDM, I'm fairly good at economics. I just don't necessarily believe govt statistics.

No, you suck at economics. As a courtesy to you, I will seize every opportunity to point out your errors. I can tell by your commentary that you have fallen victim to Marxist indoctrination and I will be happy to help you break free and to be able to think for yourself again.

keepit wrote: I don't think your patronizing comments are going over very well.

Your Marxist indoctrination included brainwashing you into thinking that you now know everything, and that anyone pointing out gaps in your understanding must be patronizing.

The fact is you are incompetent in economics. You would be hard pressed to convince me you any competency whatsoever. Please do so, if you can, but I am certain that you cannot.

Let's get to it.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-08-2019 06:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
keepit wrote: If the employer can't hack paying fair wages the business should change or fold.

Your egregious error here is your Marxist penchant for imposing your will onto others in the manner of leftist fascism.

All employers (in the US) pay fair wages. That's because the wages are forthwith agreed in advance. In your Marxist education you were taught that you get to determine what is "fair" for everybody else. Reality dictates that the two parties engaged in the employer-employee relationship make that determination. Only until the compensation-labor package is acceptable to both parties does the relationship commence ... and the employee holds all the power in the relationship. He can quit at any time. He can never be forced to work. He can walk out the door and leave for a better job at any time and there's nothing the employer can do about it.

In recap, all employers pay fair wages. Your statement above is absurd and indicative of gaping chasms in your economics understanding. Let me know what parts confuse you and we can discuss.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-08-2019 09:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
keepit wrote:
One thing about minimum wage jobs and the complaints from employers about it.
If an employer is paying wages that are too low, then he or she is ripping off the employees for their time.
If such a business can't exist while paying equitable wages, such a business shouldn't even exist. Let it go out of business and let the business owner get a minimum wage job somewhere and live under a bridge.


Price controls never work. Minimum wage laws always cause the same thing: loss of jobs.


The Parrot Killer
19-08-2019 09:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
I'm fairly good at economics. I just don't necessarily believe govt statistics.
I don't think your patronizing comments are going over very well.


Bull.

You have no idea what price discovery is.


The Parrot Killer
19-08-2019 09:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
keepit wrote:
If the employer can't hack paying fair wages the business should change or fold.


Okay. No jobs. Now the employees are unemployed. They are making ZERO. Happy?


The Parrot Killer
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate The Global Warming Fraud:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Research Grant Fraud931-03-2019 17:28
In Your Face - the IPCC and Fraud904-01-2018 01:14
climate change expert sentenced to 32 months for fraud. So much for SCIENCE, eh? More like POLITICAL scie527-04-2017 22:31
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact