Moonbox

@sharkman https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/nasdaq-michael-burry-wrong-sell-dip-buyers-big-short-2023-3

I would say that with Trudeau down 5.5%, and Poilievre only up 2%, this is more about Trudeau faceplanting than anything remarkable that PP has done.

Can't argue with that really, but anyone managing a household budget understands that the bill comes in eventually. All someone needs to do is present a reasonable alternative and the Liberal government will come toppling down. The Conservatives haven't done that yet, and PP hasn't either, though that doesn't mean he can't. Agreed. A dose of Harper pragmatism is necessary, and firing up the base isn't the way he's going to win.

You can sum up most of myata's posts in general as "Everything is BAD. We need to do SOMETHING." There are lots of people that do care, as evidenced by the utter devastation the Liberals faced in the 2022 Ontario election after 15+ years of provincial Liberal incompetence. That's the blueprint for taking Justin down, whenever someone wants to gets serious about it.

Show your mommy. She's the only one these sorts of pointless comments are going to impress. Nobody was arguing in favor of communism, but don't let that stop you from tossing out your standard strawman to argue against. The point was that false economies are not rare at all, and that free enterprises themselves are naturally inclined to create beneficial ones wherever and however they can (like with monopolies, for example). This should be obvious, but apparently it isn't. If arguing even basic econ theory like this is on the table, I'm not going to bother reading further. I'll spare myself the boredom.

I'm offended that they didn't mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I really love outrage politics. 🙄

Your example showed nothing. You dropped a bunch of random numbers, and anyone can do that about anything. Right...because there's nothing changing in the economy beyond minimum wage hikes. 😑 Or when the government has had to step in and break them up. You're so wrong here it's not even really worth digging into. The concept of a truly free market is only a theoretical ideal, and has never and will never exist. Because if it's not livable, it perpetuates the cycle of poverty. Not being able to save money and build wealth is a recipe for hopelessness (see our Reserves), and if businesses can only survive paying what amounts to slave-wages, they're neither viable nor particularly helpful for the economy in the first place. Regardless, minimum wage hasn't really changed (after adjusting for inflation) since the 1970's, so we're not even really talking about real increases.

The example was irrelevant, because the point was that wage increases don't inflate prices enough to erode the wage increases. Sure, they might inch up, but they're not erasing the wage growth. That's really not how it works. False economies abound everywhere, including (and especially in) a theoretically absolute "free market". Here's where you should be focusing the argument, on how raising minimum wage can depress the job market if it's too high, especially for lower-skilled and younger workers. It's still not that simple though, because these sorts of policies aren't merely meant to affect absolute minimum wage, but to also encourage a trickle-up of wage increases on the lower end of the spectrum. The polarization of wealth is part of the problem these policies aim to tackle, but if we're raising minimum wages and making it easy for companies to outsource goods and services delivery to China and India, we're not really solving any problem. This is a multi-faceted problem. Ideally, sure, but then there's always a need for low-skill services labor and the wage should be livable. We also can't just "suddenly" educate and train all of these people anyways. These are longer-term solutions, and delivering the programs where and when they're needed isn't as easy as it sounds. Completely different problem, and not really relevant.

No, now he's the boss, and has put his KGB background to good use confusing all of the dumdums like you. No, the collapse of the Soviet Union is what restored the right to worship in Russia. Putin's done the best he could to control it however, installing a former KGB agent and informer as the Patriarch. What a hero 😄👌.

It's never a 1:1 correlation. Rent doesn't automatically go up for poor people apartments because their wages went up 10%, and even if it did, they'd still be better off as long as their rent wasn't 100% of their income (which it isn't). Localized inflation due to federal minimum wage increases is pretty awkward concept. Regardless, the implication that keeping wages low for poor people is actually helping them is almost a meme now. You can't ignore the link between wages and jobs, but the correlation is far more elastic than folks making this argument would imagine, and that's ignoring the fact that the absolute job numbers aren't the goal. Livable wages are, and if we're not providing those then it's up to social assistance, in which case the state is supporting these people instead of the companies that are actually benefiting from the labor.

That doesn't really make sense. If their minimum age increase doesn't affect the overall inflation picture much, as you seem to agree, but their wages noticeably increase, they're evidently better off. If we're talking about the same study, the University of Washington concluded in their second study that the increases improved low-income wages, contradicting their first study.

Except give them more income and establish a basic living for them, which is what it aims to accomplish. A 10% minimum wage increase obviously doesn't cause 10% inflation, so this is kind of a silly point. All? No, but then this, like the carbon taxes, ends up being a small part of the overall inflation calculation.

I don't really know. For coffee it's pretty simple - there's never any reason for scalding hot coffee. For tea I guess it's supposed to be brewed at upwards of 100 degrees, and then steep for over 5 minutes, but then what does that do to the lineup? I guess you don't serve it at drive-throughs? That one will be interesting to see.

Fair enough. Didn't read the whole thread.

I don't think that's right: Worked fine for me.