This is the extreme result of left leaning policies on a city

[GeorgeW1000 118]

2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Nah, nobody is going to confuse you with an economist...........and the 1% don't operate the cash registers or make the product.

 

Sorry, try again.

Im sorry, but the people who make the products are the entrepreneurs, not the workers. 

[jehurey 3,228]

Just now, GeorgeW1000 said:

Im sorry, but the people who make the products are the entrepreneurs, not the workers. 

There nothing without workers.

 

If the "entrepreneurs" could've found a way to make the product and make money without the workers..............they would've done it already.

 

For a supposed economist, you really make arguments that can easily be dismantled with next to no effort. lol

[GeorgeW1000 118]

Just now, jehurey said:

There nothing without workers.

 

If the "entrepreneurs" could've found a way to make the product and make money without the workers..............they would've done it already.

 

For a supposed economist, you really make arguments that can easily be dismantled with next to no effort. lol

But that's exactly what's happening. Entrepreneurs are finding ways to make productivity without workers. Machines and globalization make it harder for workers to ask for higher wages, because they're not being more productive, machines are. 

[jehurey 3,228]

1 minute ago, GeorgeW1000 said:

But that's exactly what's happening. Entrepreneurs are finding ways to make productivity without workers. Machines and globalization make it harder for workers to ask for higher wages, because they're not being more productive, machines are. 

Uh huh.............yet the graph shows the disparity growing since the mid-70's

 

Do you understand THAT is what I was pointing that out?

 

Do you have an explanation for THAT?????

 

Did you think you were going to get me to FORGET the very thing we were arguing??????????????

[GeorgeW1000 118]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Uh huh.............yet the graph shows the disparity growing since the mid-70's

 

Do you understand THAT is what I was pointing that out?

 

Do you have an explanation for THAT?????

 

Did you think you were going to get me to FORGET the very thing we were arguing??????????????

I don't have an explanation for that specific date, but that's about when "globalization" began.

[jehurey 3,228]

1 minute ago, GeorgeW1000 said:

I don't have an explanation for that specific date, but that's about when "globalization" began.

No, globalization began at the turn of the 19th century.

 

We had stock exchanges in multiple countries, and trade agreements before then.

 

We should know WE were the main exporters of goods coming out of WW2. Globalization was already in effect by then.

 

...................you're an economist you say??

 

Thanks for losing the argument, you can't answer the question............and your attempts to change the subject aren't going to work.

 

Thanks for playing.

[GeorgeW1000 118]

Just now, jehurey said:

No, globalization began at the turn of the 19th century.

 

We had stock exchanges in multiple countries, and trade agreements before then.

 

We should know WE were the main exporters of goods coming out of WW2. Globalization was already in effect by then.

 

...................you're an economist you say??

 

Thanks for losing the argument, you can't answer the question............and your attempts to change the subject aren't going to work.

 

Thanks for playing.

Why do I "Lose" for not answering something you have no idea of the answer either? 

[jehurey 3,228]

Just now, GeorgeW1000 said:

Why do I "Lose" for not answering something you have no idea of the answer either? 

No.............I did give you the answer.

 

And you couldn't refute it.

 

So.......yeah, that definitely qualifies as you "losing". So your question of "why" just got answered.

 

When you're wrong...........I prove you wrong.

 

Let me know when you can do the same.

[Cooke 2,026]

We all lose

[The Mother Fucker 26]

I was hoping to read something...something you wrote at least, not see someone's propagated video lead a thread.

[jehurey 3,228]

2 hours ago, Cookester15 said:

We all lose

No.

 

-Less homeless people on the street.

-Which means a portion of them were able to be lifted up and transitioned into stable, productive citizens

-Which means they have jobs and therefore generate more tax revenue for the local government

-And the program actually CREATES jobs

-And the program actually SAVES money because its cheaper to provide housing than it is to constantly imprison them in our jails and provide medical attention to them in our hospitals.

-Which frees up POLICE resources and Police manpower to focus on other more important matters

-And frees up HOSPITAL resources and manpower to focus on other more important matters.

 

The program is a success from every single possible angle. The most progressive police ends up being the most cost-efficient.  So, its actually progressive and FISCALLY conservative at the same time.

 

Back in the day, that was simply called "A Good Idea."