It is no secret that the weaker your currency is the more of it can be bought by foreign entities. if we were to observe that often it is cheaper for the richer countries to invest and post people off shore, then it is logical to see that the weaker your currency is, the better, yes? this means less imports and more exports, more opportunities to be the supplier and not the customer, of course. The way i see it america and the west import goods from the third world and then modify them and sell them again. this is like being a middle man, but, if the third world was to modify goods themselves, they would see their currency increase in value as more entities would be using their currency to trade with, obviously. So, when it comes to things like a living wage, you want your minimum wage to be as low as possible, so as to get the producers around you to take as little as possible from the working class to live on. this will keep the currency buying many goods from all over the place, and then the working class scores in certain ways. With the third world raising the minimum wage all the time, they are impoverishing their people further by lowering their buying power, and, seeing the prices of goods go up locally! the trick is to quickly lower the minimum wage and penalize stores for goods being too expensive, if you ask me. ~ Basically, the buying power of the money goes down if the value of the money goes down, meaning that the more you are being paid, the less your money is worth to buy goods with.
I agree that we should abolish the minimum wage, but why the hell would stores keep selling the products they do if you forbid them from raising their prices when they need to to stay in business?
Okay, nobody will argue that higher wages for a certain subset of the population will increase the consumption of certain goods in a certain place. This doesn't necessarily imply that these wages for these people will have no effect on the structure of the economy or the structure of distribution. Make sense?
I agree that as the price of money decreases, the price of other goods goes up in proportion. But how would the amount one is being paid influence the price of money?
I don't believe so much in currency strength economics. While it's true that a weaker currency generally helps make a country's products more attractive to buyers in other countries because of a more favorable exchange rate, when a country intentionally tries to devalue its currency it creates a terrible cost on its own people. Such a country is basically forcing its people to slave away producing more so people in other countries can buy it. This doesn't benefit the people. If they wanted to they could be willing to work for less based on their own individual decision, but instead the government essentially forces it on them. To be able to see this, you really have to look at the actual goods and wealth being exchanged, and ignore the money itself as merely a medium of exchange.
so??? 100% of humans agree with you so why point it out? did someone argue that buying power goes up when value of money goes down??
it would depend on why you are being paid more money. If because you are suddenly more productive then it would mean you could buy more goods. If because of inflation then you could not buy more goods
what?? if you give fast food workers in Peoria( a certain subset of population) a $100/hour raise this will increase their consumption of certain goods in a certain place!! Did you think they would burn the money rather than spend it?
I found your incredulity confusing until I read my post again. I meant to say the exact opposite of what I did say. Nobody will argue against that position. Apologies.
can you tell us why liberals should not demonized after attacking our families, schools, health care system, corporations, religion, workers, and culture?
If you really believe that your fellow countrymen intend to destroy everything that you value, you no longer have a country. But I have good news for you. You don't understand them, and they don't understand you. This is grounds for hope.
Yes. Your fellow countrymen mean you well, you just don't understand their point of view, you don't see how they could view it as benevolent towards you.
You don't remember how this conversation started? You replied to my signature, implying that we SHOULD demonize leftists. That kind of attitude threatens the existence of the United States. An implication of American Exceptionalism is that if the civic project fails, the country is no more. It has never been this close to failing since the Civil War.
yes we should demonize leftists. That is what the Consitution requires. That strengthens America, not threatens it. How can following the Constitution threaten the existence of America when it is the foundation of America? Marxists would love for us to accept leftism despite its perfect anti Americanism. Do you know why?
I must've missed that Article. If you think you can fix the United States by acting like nearly half of the population means to destroy the country, you're wrong. The only way for open societies like our own to prosper in perpetuity is to have frank and deep discussions on matters of common concern. The United States hasn't been this polarized in 150 years, and this fact threatens the very unity of our civic project. The United States can only succeed with great effort on all our parts. If we throw our hands up and succumb to pointless hatred, we'll fail.
Article 1 section 8 the federal government has only a very few carefully enumerated powers this is the basis of our constitution to which Liberals are 100% opposed therefore they cannot really take the oath of office which requires them to pledge to preserve protect and defend the Constitution
If half the nation became murderers he wouldn't say that we have to tolerate their point of view in order to maintain harmony in our civic project would you if I cancer spread is he try to beat it back you don't try to live with it and pray it doesn't spread further if people here and tolerated Nazi is him in Germany in the 1920s or communism in China in the 1930s 115 million people would not have been senselessly slaughtered