3 ms·

Because if I had responded to everything you had said, I would have had to have written an essay. About 100 years ago, minimum wage used to be a socialist conc

Because if I had responded to everything you had said, I would have had to have written an essay. About 100 years ago, minimum wage used to be a socialist concept. Now, all parties in America support the minimum wage. The only debate is whether it should go up or stay the same. Your view on minimum wage and absolute deregulation is so radical that only the anarchist party is likely to share your views. I swear, some people just want to see the world burn. The economics term you are searching for is probably a “deadweight loss”. In theory, when a $1/pack tax is introduced on cigarettes, there is a decrease in the volume of cigarettes packs sold. That volume reduction numeric value is the deadweight loss. In practice, cigarettes are an “inelastic” good and nicotine addicts keep buying packs to support their nicotine addiction even when the price goes up by a dollar. Thus, the deadweight loss on cigarettes is much lower than with usual goods. Regulation does not delete a market. Just because we have printed nutrition facts and safety checks on almost all of our foods does not mean people have stopped selling food and people have stopped buying food. Just because drivers must stop at stop signs doesn’t mean people have stopped driving. Just because banks are required to only safeguard 10% or more of their account holder’s balance doesn’t mean banks are unprofitable and have ceased to exist. These all just mean the equilibrium has shifted in some amount in some direction and the market has established a new equilibrium.

setr 7y ago
>Because if I had responded to everything you had said, I would have had to have written an essay. As far as I can tell, you seem to have instead opted to respond to nothing I said, in the previous post... >Your view on minimum wage and absolute deregulation is so radical that only the anarchist party is likely to share your views. Is it really..? It seemed like an obvious thing to me: creating a glass floor traps people underneath it, but (ideally) makes life better for those above it. Glass ceilings are trivially accepted — and ceiling is just a floor to the guy above it. Is it so radical to apply it where the people above aren’t in the top 10%? Also I’m not arguing absolute deregulation — I’m arguing that regulation inherently removes a subset of the market, and this should be accounted for. It might be worth it, it might not be. But its certainly not without consequence. That, and that the extremely poor can live a better and more complete lifestyle in other countries than whats found in the US. >The economics term you are searching for is probably a “deadweight loss”. In theory, when a $1/pack tax is introduced on cigarettes, there is a decrease in the volume of cigarettes packs sold This doesn’t seem to be exactly what I’m getting at; I’m trying to refer to the idea that, when certain quality controls are globally enforced, the base cost goes up, and those who relied on lower costs can no longer be served. These barriers always existed — there’s a minimum cost to doing anything, really — but that hard-line bar has been raised. And that means the chunk of market that once existed inbetween the previous minimum and the new minimum... vanishes. >Just because banks are required to only safeguard 10% or more of their account holder’s balance doesn’t mean banks are unprofitable and have ceased to exist. I’m not suggesting it would remove the entire market of a given domain (I mean, regulation can, but usually doesn’t, and doesn’t strive to) but rather, it removes certain previously available options for banks which perhaps reached a sector that is now no longer served. That is, some people were not well off enough to afford such a safegaurd; the equilibrium shifts, along with the bare minimum required to enroll. Where previously “shithole” banks could serve that population, now a void exists (perhaps replaced by something worse, or better, or nothing at all). But banks that cheat are probably globally good to regulate out of existence. Banks that safegaurd 10% vs 12% perhaps less obvious. But if 12% drives up the cost significantly, then some group of people are being pushed out. Loan sharks don’t find borrowers because of a wealth of viable alternatives... they’re all thats left when you’ve exhausted all better options. The higher the minimum bar, the more likely someone ends up in such a state.

setr 7y ago

>Because if I had responded to everything you had said, I would have had to have written an essay. As far as I can tell, you seem to have instead opted to respond to nothing I said, in the previous post... >Your view on minimum wage and absolute deregulation is so radical that only the anarchist party is likely to share your views. Is it really..? It seemed like an obvious thing to me: creating a glass floor traps people underneath it, but (ideally) makes life better for those above it. Glass ceilings are trivially accepted — and ceiling is just a floor to the guy above it. Is it so radical to apply it where the people above aren’t in the top 10%? Also I’m not arguing absolute deregulation — I’m arguing that regulation inherently removes a subset of the market, and this should be accounted for. It might be worth it, it might not be. But its certainly not without consequence. That, and that the extremely poor can live a better and more complete lifestyle in other countries than whats found in the US. >The economics term you are searching for is probably a “deadweight loss”. In theory, when a $1/pack tax is introduced on cigarettes, there is a decrease in the volume of cigarettes packs sold This doesn’t seem to be exactly what I’m getting at; I’m trying to refer to the idea that, when certain quality controls are globally enforced, the base cost goes up, and those who relied on lower costs can no longer be served. These barriers always existed — there’s a minimum cost to doing anything, really — but that hard-line bar has been raised. And that means the chunk of market that once existed inbetween the previous minimum and the new minimum... vanishes. >Just because banks are required to only safeguard 10% or more of their account holder’s balance doesn’t mean banks are unprofitable and have ceased to exist. I’m not suggesting it would remove the entire market of a given domain (I mean, regulation can, but usually doesn’t, and doesn’t strive to) but rather, it removes certain previously available options for banks which perhaps reached a sector that is now no longer served. That is, some people were not well off enough to afford such a safegaurd; the equilibrium shifts, along with the bare minimum required to enroll. Where previously “shithole” banks could serve that population, now a void exists (perhaps replaced by something worse, or better, or nothing at all). But banks that cheat are probably globally good to regulate out of existence. Banks that safegaurd 10% vs 12% perhaps less obvious. But if 12% drives up the cost significantly, then some group of people are being pushed out. Loan sharks don’t find borrowers because of a wealth of viable alternatives... they’re all thats left when you’ve exhausted all better options. The higher the minimum bar, the more likely someone ends up in such a state.