Bernie Sanders at Hoffheinz at U of H Sunday Night !!

I didn't say they wouldn't raise prices I said the raises would be small. Mcdonalds who generates a large amount of it's billions from royalties that Mcdonalds owners have to pay just to be a Mcdonalds could lower that payment requirement. Who is the "we" you speak of I've never had a conversation with you about Social Security or Medicare.

 

Most super-rich people will make their income on capital gains. Most corporations in the traditional economy are structured with wages, with the upper-middle class, middle class, and lower class more or less trading in risk preferences for a steady fixed income.

If you increase wages for the lower class, keeping in mind wage stickiness, wages will cascade up eventually. It is capital-holders that have to contend with lower return on capital, insofar as screwing the middle class out of productivity gains has been a go-to move for that.

 

Define small?

 

Nope.

Investment will increase a bit in the short term thanks to the lower classes having more money, but this is eventually cancelled out by corporations reducing investments as they have to pay their workers more as well as the middle class investing less due to higher prices. Since there is no real investment jump like minimum wages advocates claim will happen, the result is that the economy is not jumpstarted by minimum wages, which means that middle class wages stay the same and relative purchasing power decreases.

EITC is a better way of handling things, as many economist can tell you. It's not as simple or as obvious as calling for higher minimum wages and it lacks the "Screw the corporations" call of minimum wages. But it's just a better way of doing things.

 

I don't have enough time to delve into details on this particular post, but I'd point to the following:

You're speaking in general terms.

1) Fiscal multipliers tend to be highest with social programs aimed disproportionately at the poor, off-hand. It's a bold claim to say anything will "cancel out" without any specifics.

2) When you say "middle class wages" do you mean nominal or real? You seem to be making an argument that real wages would decrease relative to nominal wage increase and increased demand-pull inflation, which I've cited several times simply isn't the fact. Nominal increases in "middle-class" wages would be well within the economic literature.

3) As many economists: who exactly?

4) No, instead it's screw the government. And yes, the difference in the taxes paid between those who hold their income in capital gains and those who hold their income in wages leads to one situation grossely benefitting the shareholders and owners of companies that drive 1) unsustainable models based on under-paying labour with massive negative externalities 2) derive minimal benefit and propensity to spend from marginal units of income.

You also seem to be assuming a very neo-classical Solow view of growth rates as derived from capital stock and productivity. I would caution against reading too much into savings/investment rates without the context of what is happening right now in America (monetary recovery from risk dumping and toxic trades).

 

For one thing, raising the minimum wage cuts out the middle man (government). If the worker makes enough money, they don't have to sign up for the government for food stamps and/or welfare, they can simply use their paycheck to pay the bills and buy the food.

 

But aren't prices effected by raising the minimum wage and we're basically back were we started with minimum wage being to low.

 

I have no data or anything to back this up, but I don't really buy into the whole "if you raise employee wages (by fiat) then prices will go up."

The reason I don't buy into it is prices for goods/services are already as high as any business can charge. If they charged more, people would simply stop buying the good/service (or just buy less). The only result I can see is for people to get laid off, fired, or new people just not bring hired to begin with.

 

Hard to believe Jeff Weaver, Phil Fiermonte, and Tad Devine are having this much success, even early on...

 

I'm a fan of Bernie's, glynch, but he has no chance of winning if he manages to get the nomination, in my humble opinion. All Senator Sanders would accomplish is to hand the presidency to the Republicans. I'm glad that he's pushing Hillary to the left, but I've already been through this with McGovern and Dukakis (not to mention McCarthy). Heck, toss Mondale in the pot as well. Candidates that were decent people with good ideas, but no chance to win in the general. I prefer a candidate who can win in the general election, not one that makes me feel good, but can't win. Sadly, that's where we are at, glynch. It would be as stupid as Democrats and independents voting for Nadir in 2000. That handed the Oval Office chair to George W. Shrub. Do you seriously want a repeat of that? I don't.

 

I agree with you in principle, Deckard, but I honestly think that line of thinking...about winning the argument as opposed to governing the nation...is what needs to change among most of us. And that's not changing by adhering to status quo.

I don't personally think that Bernie Sanders' campaign is about "...winning..." as much as it is about governing the nation...Mr. Sanders has already said that if he were to not secure the party nomination by the time caucus rolls around, he would support the party's nomination. He isn't as interested in upsetting the process in a cavalier or maverick manner...not like Donald Trump.

I think that's because Mr. Sanders understands that governing isn't always about trying to take a temperature...it's about finding a cure.

And perhaps for the first time in about 30 years, enough people may be ready to understand that our government...at any level...is our collective conscience...and precisely why the supposition that government can and should be run like a corporation or business is, at best, unsupportable.

What I would hope, if the seemingly inevitable occurs and Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for president, is that any tack "left" she takes is reinforced by Senate and House elections as well. I don't at all disagree with you that, because of the way money has rushed into and subsequently quagmired and corrupted our politics, there's little to be gained by not playing the game the way the rules are currently laid out.

...But at some point, if anything is going to change the way this political process works...it's got to be changed from the ground up and not the top down. And that realization needs to be made now, I think.

 

i could get behind something like that. It would perhaps be the only thing that could get me to vote for Clinton.

 

I would think the VP would be some blue collar or Southern candidate. She's disconnected from them moreso than she is with her other base members, and Bernie would not help bridge that national gap. She'd need a Biden like candidate but I doubt either wants that situation.

Hillary won't need to attack Bernie any time soon. Even if he wins NH or some other early primary. I think she's more prepared for a progressive spoiler candidate this time around, and I doubt Bernie has the pull among the young that Obama or even Dean had before. That enthusiasm can gain momentum, but Hillary hasn't done much yet to activate her historical prospect as the first female president and the enthusiasm and aspirations that could generate.

 

Al Gore should run and Bernie should be his Vice. I can see Hilary going out soon, she just has too much of a past. People will just keep attacking her on name only just like Bush.

 

Gore/Sanders would be a nice ticket. I dunno how that would play out but I'd be on it.