Sometimes I just want to yell, "Your math is bad, and you should feel bad!"

I was not a part of this exchange, but was reading along and found myself agreeing with the bolded poster below, who was really on his own in this thread, titled "U.$. Wealth Distribution: How do we fix it?". Then, Mr. Italics retorts with the most facepalming statement yet...it took all my willpower not to jump into the fray as well....

Look at the places where they instituted a living wage, above the minimum wage, like San Francisco. The price of goods and services is higher and less abundant than just across the bay where they don’t have these laws. So paying people more as a minimum causes more problems. If everyone makes a higher minimum wage, there will be more demand for all goods. Those goods will raise in prices. So that increase in income will not help.

Drum roll please....

SO goods are higher priced so what, if people are paid better they will still be able to afford them.

But if you want cheaper prices the solution is there Bring back slavery. Then there wont we wage costs and thus you’ll be able to be just that bit better off.

your argument boils down to, if we pay other people a proper wage they’ll want stuff that i want and the stuff i want will be dearer.

So your arguing to keep people in poverty so you can be better off.

Maybe your fine with that but im not

.........

god damn it.

Posted Dec 6, 2012, 3:27 PM UTC

1922
In_Liberty•

We're fucked. The people who think this way have become the majority. Critical thinking has been replaced with demagoguery and rhetoric, individual liberty with obedience to the state. We're outnumbered by 100 to 1, and their masters have all the power.

8
Krackor•

We're not fucked at all. It's really difficult to reason your way into the statist position, because many of the ideas that compose that ideology just don't make any sense. In order for that ideology to persist is to be passed on as unquestioned knowledge.

Anti-statism is built on firmer logical ground, so in addition to simply passing on anti-statist ideas, there will be many people who figure it out on their own despite being taught statist ideas. We have meme growth kinetics on our side. It would defy all logic for anti-state ideas not to win out in the end.

11
CuilRunnings•

It's really difficult to reason your way into the statist position, because many of the ideas that compose that ideology just don't make any sense.

That never stopped religion.

4
Krackor•

Since the information age started, I don't see religion on the rise.

9
CuilRunnings•

Right, so the obvious lies are easily understood. However, people are still herd animals, and most have a compelling need to believe in a higher power. Most fill the void left by religion with belief in the State. Where religion used to care for the sick and the poor, they now want the State to do it. Etc.

5
ShamAbram•

Government is religion. When we treat our representatives as infallable beings with our best intentions close to their chest, we find the only thing that keeps this system alive is faith in the corruption.

Which has grown rapidly with Bernays and the dawn of the information and advertising age.

2
jdkeithHail Kochtopus•

Exactly. And it's hard to reason your way out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.

5
Eric578•

plus when things go tits up the statists will try really hard to blame anything but the state, but everyone knows who was running the ship at full speed toward the cliff. even critically thinking challenged statists can identify their dear leaders :)

3
hexapus•

This is what happens when the state runs education.

6
In_Liberty•

Remember learning about how everything was bad until Woodrow Wilson saved America by implementing the Fed?

I'd like to smack the shit out of every US History teacher who spouts that nonsense, but I adhere to the NAP so I'm just gonna go eat some Captain Crunch and think happy thoughts after work.

4
[deleted]•

Bring back slavery

You can just end it there. Every idiot know about reddit these days.

7
sometimesitworksOP•

Explain?

3
theTANbananas•

Yep. Unintended consequences are never considered by statists. They look at the here and now.

6
sometimesitworksOP•

Which makes our job so much more difficult. Look at Hayak, von Mises, their "modern" counterparts, etc. Ridiculed by the mainstream establishment, because what was seen was considered more important than the potential downstream consequences. It is pretty hard to be heard when saying "But in ten to twenty years, we will be paying dearly for our mistakes now!", especially when for many people, now doesn't seem like much of a mistake.

3
theTANbananas•

Exactly. I have even heard Keynesians admit to it. The whole socialism idea is based on fix what is "wrong" here and now without any regard to other parts of the economy or any future concerns. If the housing market is down, let's "fix" it even if it destroys some other part of the economy (because then we will just "fix" that). Then they get stuck in this loop where they are constantly trying to fix mistakes by creating new ones. And that causes a HUGE monetary issue when have this sort of fake economy. If the economy is allowed to fluctuate naturally, things will move up and down without throwing billions and trillions of dollars at it. Can a free market have some rough patches? Absolutely. However a free market is going to be alot more stable. Its like the idea of God stepping in and trying to push Katrina somewhere so as to save New Orleans. Sure you could sit here and be amazed at how God saved New Orleans... Until you realized Katrina was pushed into Florida and now Florida is a huge fucking mess. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the US economy.

5