|
Post by Blues on Dec 9, 2005 14:25:43 GMT -5
so I recenly read some assigned chapters in this book What's the Matter With Kansas, by Thomas Frank. he argues thar repub. voters vote for: cultural issues to support economic objections
what does that mean!?
it means that repub. voters in the so called middle "red states" vote for moral issues rather than economic ones!
and example: Madonna and Britney Spears make out on TV. ppl in the red states are appaled. they want action done about gays/lesbians
there's a local-ish election
2 candidates, one dem, one repub.
dem says "ZOMG! riase the minimum wage and free medical insurance for all! LOL"
repub. says "ROTFL! I r pwn U, Democrat, I will ban abortion and gay marriage! Ph334r me!
The economically opressed people of, let's say,, Nebraska, will vote for the Repub. because he wants to ban gays and shit.
ironically enough, the economic policies that the repub will most likley instill, like tax cuts, will benifet the rich the most, like....SPEARS AND MADONNA!!!!! OMG!!!
and the truth is, these so called "wall street" republicans dont' actually want any of this moral issue crap solved anyway, because it's that's gone, then the only think left to think about is economic issuse.....and voters ("main street" republicans) will obvi. see that the democrat is better and swing the other way.
thoughts? lol, this was my American Politics final. I probably aced it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Dec 9, 2005 14:28:41 GMT -5
You put "ROTFL" on your final and think you aced it? wow... are you sure your uni is accredited? jk
Anywho, yah, thats all so true its sad....
|
|
|
Post by Blues on Dec 9, 2005 15:07:03 GMT -5
I know! before I was all wtf!? why are people stupid!? and now it all makes sense.......
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Dec 9, 2005 15:29:07 GMT -5
You didn't already know this? There's a reason the central states who vote republican are called the 'bible belt.' In fact, religious folks such a huge part of the population, it was pretty them alone who got Bush elected.
|
|
|
Post by Blues on Dec 9, 2005 16:49:42 GMT -5
well, I knew that, and I"m sure it was in the back of my mind all along, but I jsut never put it together.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Dec 9, 2005 17:41:54 GMT -5
We had a lecture in our class at UCSD and he pointed out the weirdness of why anti-abortion and low taxes were related to each other when clearly they are seperate subjects. This reminds me a lot of that.
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on Dec 9, 2005 22:10:37 GMT -5
Also, Mr. Freeman pointed out recently that the media works to make Americans "stupider" by cramming in reality TV and other entertainment shows so no one cares about how the economy is doing.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Dec 10, 2005 0:34:10 GMT -5
Thats why you get canadian news. Long live CBC and newspapers
|
|
Max
Member
Eat rocket, dirty pic stealer
Posts: 177
|
Post by Max on Dec 10, 2005 2:35:22 GMT -5
2 small sidenotes, first of all, for the record, i do not call policies that republicans are churning out republican economic policy. Republicans want as little spending as possible, and yet no spending bill has been veto'd yet and we are just going further into debt, hell, i have to say that the clinton administration almost had a more republican economic policy than this one
second, in the case that you support the democrat that is running, raising minimum wage increases* unemployment, because it interferes with the supply and demand of the workforce. minimum wage should stay at just a little above the minimum to make ends meet, in order to give the most people the most benefit, so dont think raising minimum wage is always a good thing.
idn, taking economics has showed me wierd things, like before i thought the nike sweatshops were some of the most horrible institutions there were, but yet the towns that had them are having amazing economic growth now and the standards of living there are rising rapidly... all clouds have grey lining i guess
and in case anyone wondered i am a social and economic conservative, but a moderate, not an extremist
oh, and i agree with bluedolphin
*note, this has one exception, if there are only 1 or 2 places where one can go work, increasing minimum wage interestingly enough increases emloyment, so if you wanted a wage floor, thats where you should put it
**If this seems a bit incoherent btw, i just had a hard day studying for finals... so yeah, i have the right to be
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Dec 10, 2005 3:13:28 GMT -5
Republicans don't want to be taxed, and they see wild spending as the forbidden love child of taxes. They DO like spending, if its on the military or chirstian churches. Also, the liberal party of canada has a very similar economic policy to the Clinton administration, and they also run a mild surplus, just they've been doing it right for decades, instead of a few years. About raising the minimum wage. Society is like a reversible chemical reaction. pushing it one way balances it the other way. you can never make do anything without repercussions. Paying the millions who are on minimum wage, busing tables, or working behind the counter at sprawlmart or mcdonalds, benefit far more than the few people termed the "hardcore unemplyed"(dont' have a job, can't get one can't keep one, who are often employed and trained out of i geuss you could call it pity, but companies) the other people to go are those who are only hired to perform the most basic menial tasks. with the minimum wage up, its mor worthwhiles to have people trained and intelligent. Yes, sweatshops help the town, but not the kids whose lives are generally ruined. In medeival china, children were forced to sew such tiny stitches, that they were usually blind by thirteen. Personally, I think a coupla centuries shoudl show a little more progress for us. Besides, we could acheive teh same economic boom in the towns by giving them ten bucks a month, whoopee, progress.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Dec 11, 2005 0:17:51 GMT -5
Ok... since you guys seem to be either mixing up your economics, or simply not making the right connections Ill try to clear things up for you. First of all as far as republican economic policy goes. Tradionally Republicans have been no tax, no government intervention. Let the people take care of themselves (based on the theory that government intervention creates deadweight lost, stifles motivation etc). This means that traditionally the rebublicans spent no money and raked in no money when the were in office. However, under (I think Eisenhower started it) a certain president, the republicans semi-reversed their economic policy to affect the future rather than the present. By putting the government in debt, any democrats elected in the future wouldnt have the funds to provide social welfare, thereby essentially condemning the next generations to pay politically for the problems of the current political power. Spending money on military has now become a mainstay republican policy, and I do not believe they are in favor any more of not spending anything.
As far as minimum wage. The Dead weight loss that would be a glut of labor produced by minimum wages, are there only in the most simple of diagrams. We first have to ask ourselves how elastic or inelastic the supply and demand are, and depending on that how much dead weight loss increases when a price floor is introduced. Then, we also have to ask ourselves if minimum wage is in fact correcting for a market failure, in which case it might actually be eliminating dead weight loss.
To answer the first question, Demand in this case is relatively in elastic. People who want to work, are going to want to work at pretty much any price. Supply is also relatively inelastic (assuming we are talking about domestic supply, without introducing exporting labor). This combination means that creating a price floor or ceiling actually doesnt create very much dead weight loss at all.
The second question is more speculation than actual fact, but it is possible that minimum wage is correcting for market failures. A company might make more money if its wages are low, but society might in fact benefit more if wages were higher. This in turn means that the private optimum is at a quantaty which can be fixed towards the social optimum by means of government intervention.
And Alex, at some point, every country has treated its human population terribly. While its too bad that sweatshops exist, at least take the bad with the good, and notice that oftentimes, hardships are an essential step in reforming to become a better social system.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Dec 11, 2005 23:54:40 GMT -5
At some point leaves alot of room. We're not in the past, I like to think that we're advanced enough to not have to treat anybody shitty, just because we can. What we're doing is not moral, its pure selfish avarice
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Dec 12, 2005 3:48:49 GMT -5
yes but heres the thing. We arent in the past, but china is.... or was.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Dec 12, 2005 6:27:43 GMT -5
But Chinese sweatshops aren't the key problem, and they're at a point where they are fully responisble for any inhumane policies on their part
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Dec 12, 2005 17:07:58 GMT -5
Also, people in China can't express their discontent through democracy.
|
|