Health care backlash

[Timshel]

No, my point was the ability of young people to acquire a decent lifestyle and as people's worth, in general, declines it increases the ability of those starting out to catch up quicker.

So then you are not just for inflation but anything that destabilizes the market and leads to a general decline in the standard of living.

An economic decline does not increase the lot of the poor. It just decreases their wealth less than it does that of the rich.

Another example is the billions of dollars that evaporated due to the financial crisis. While that may have hurt those who had the money to lose it helped those who didn't have the money such as young people.

How?

The same idea applies to inflation. It reduces the worth of people's money and makes it necessary to make new/more money.

What an idiotic argument. You are arguing that government destruction of wealth is justified as motivational.

Inflationary policy created the the bubble in home prices. Many of the young and working classes were priced out of the market by that or are now underneath their homes. I doubt those who have ruined their credit or lost in other ways see it as just the kick in the pants they needed. A kick in the teeth maybe.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Apple hates americans. Obama hates americans. They believe destroying our economy is some kind of global justice.

 

[apple0154]

Actually that is supply v demand and I mentioned it earlier. The demand was too high because they priced their razors too low.

I never noticed a shortage of razors in the stores. What constitutes the demand being too high?

 

[Topspin]

And there you have it, Cyp......the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam war protests....victories all one through diligence, resistence and PEACE. Ghandi got the Brits to walk out of India (in a fashion) without firing a shot! But the yahoos who have been revved up by the neocon punditry and directly/indirectly encouraged by their political allies (i.e.,Armey's "Freedomworks") are high on low information, willful ignorance and paranoia. They'll stubbornly repeat their convoluted logic and deny the hole in their boot is from their own gun.

Very nice wingnut moron burn!!! Kudos

 

[Damocles]

I never noticed a shortage of razors in the stores. What constitutes the demand being too high?

Whether you noticed it or not wouldn't be the issue, the issue would be whether they could manufacture them quickly enough to keep them stocked. When the demand increased they raise prices, it is what happens. Seeing a trend and reacting to it is what business is about, if you don't react you wind up out of business.

 

[apple0154]

So then you are not just for inflation but anything that destabilizes the market and leads to a general decline in the standard of living.

No, I'm for the young and working poor to have a chance to increase their standard of living.

An economic decline does not increase the lot of the poor. It just decreases their wealth less than it does that of the rich.

Which increases the lot of the poor. A person's wealth is based on what others have. A person earning $1,000/month is rich if the average wage in the country in which he lives is $300/month.

What an idiotic argument. You are arguing that government destruction of wealth is justified as motivational.

I'm arguing that as wages and prices increase the young person, or anyone who is currently working, has an opportunity to get ahead. Otherwise, if prices and wages stayed the same once an individual made a certain amount of money they would never work again. They would be the perpetual "boss".

Inflationary policy created the the bubble in home prices. Many of the young and working classes were priced out of the market by that or are now underneath their homes. I doubt those who have ruined their credit or lost in other ways see it as just the kick in the pants they needed. A kick in the teeth maybe.

There are a few points to consider when it comes to the housing bubble. The first thing is those low interest loans should have been made available to first time buyers only. More than a few buyers bought on speculation.

Then the adjustable mortgage was a scam. It wasn't structured to help the first time home buyer.

 

[cawacko]

No, I'm for the young and working poor to have a chance to increase their standard of living.



Which increases the lot of the poor. A person's wealth is based on what others have. A person earning $1,000/month is rich if the average wage in the country in which he lives is $300/month.



I'm arguing that as wages and prices increase the young person, or anyone who is currently working, has an opportunity to get ahead. Otherwise, if prices and wages stayed the same once an individual made a certain amount of money they would never work again. They would be the perpetual "boss".



There are a few points to consider when it comes to the housing bubble. The first thing is those low interest loans should have been made available to first time buyers only. More than a few buyers bought on speculation.

Then the adjustable mortgage was a scam. It wasn't structured to help the first time home buyer.

The average 25 year old is going to have less knowledge and less experience than the average 50 and is of course going to earn less as a result. Thus as one gains experience and knowledge and can add more value they will make more money. That's how young people get ahead by building their tool box of skills in their youth and taking advantage of those skill sets later in life.

There are of course always exceptions but that's focused on the large majority. Why the hell would you want to bring others down to help young kids who have their whole future ahead of them to grow and develop in their career? Where do you learn that kind of convoluted ass backwards type thinking?

 

[Topspin]

WoW there's one I disagree whith turbo-libs 1,000 percent. Bring the country down 30 percent and young people are relatively better off. WTF

 

[apple0154]

Apple hates americans. Obama hates americans. They believe destroying our economy is some kind of global justice.

I miss your Socialism avatar, my comical friend.

As for destroying the economy consider the following. Canada has a program strictly for first time home buyers requiring a minimum down payment. Because it's for first time buyers only it reduces speculation as it doesn't encourage people to buy several homes as an investment.

Another thing is the banks and investment companies are scrutinized by the government resulting in Canada suffering much less than other countries from the financial crisis.

Did you ever watch the documentary "The Warning"? http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/

I know your attention span is severely limited so start at 16:00 minutes and watch for one minute. Alan Greenspan refused to prosecute financial fraud. He felt the market would look after it. In other words if someone could rip another off financially, so be it. Are you implying typical Americans agree with that idea/philosophy? Do you?

Obviously it didn't work and Greenspan was shown to be an incompetent fool and his policies destroyed many people financially. Why did that happen? It happened because of nincompoops like yourself not wanting government involvement.

Lastly, as for my hating Americans that's impossible! [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHUd0TbuZPo"]YouTube- I wish they all could be California girls[/ame]
Unless, of course, you swing a different way. Not that's there anything wrong with that as Jerry would say.

 

[apple0154]

Whether you noticed it or not wouldn't be the issue, the issue would be whether they could manufacture them quickly enough to keep them stocked. When the demand increased they raise prices, it is what happens. Seeing a trend and reacting to it is what business is about, if you don't react you wind up out of business.

My point was Gillette would know how many razors sold for X amount of dollars. Then they raise the price and see how many sell. If a comparable amount sell they raise the price a bit more until there is a noticeable reduction in sales resulting in a decreased bottom line.

For example, a product is selling for a reasonable period of time and it's determined 100 sell at one dollar each. If they raise the price to $2.00 and only 60 sell they are making more money so the increase in price is not due to demand in the sense more people want them or there is a shortage. Their goal is to find the highest price they can sell the product for and still make the same or more profit than they did when selling it at $1.00.

An example is diamonds. There is no shortage of diamonds. Years ago, when diamonds were decreasing in price there was a "manufactured" shortage resulting in diamonds remaining expensive.

 

[Damocles]

My point was Gillette would know how many razors sold for X amount of dollars. Then they raise the price and see how many sell. If a comparable amount sell they raise the price a bit more until there is a noticeable reduction in sales resulting in a decreased bottom line.

For example, a product is selling for a reasonable period of time and it's determined 100 sell at one dollar each. If they raise the price to $2.00 and only 60 sell they are making more money so the increase in price is not due to demand in the sense more people want them or there is a shortage. Their goal is to find the highest price they can sell the product for and still make the same or more profit than they did when selling it at $1.00.

An example is diamonds. There is no shortage of diamonds. Years ago, when diamonds were decreasing in price there was a "manufactured" shortage resulting in diamonds remaining expensive.

Again, reacting to the market is how the Law of Supply v. Demand applies in the real world. You simply describe how market is effected by supply. They know they can efficiently create "this" many, the price they want to set will sell all they can efficiently produce without an effective shortage of supply on the shelves.

Now artificial supply shortages on commodities are how prices are set for those commodities, OPEC does much the same with oil. You can note that OPEC is made up of governments and then realize we have reached full circle. South Africa wants the diamonds to sell at a price that makes the mines profitable, therefore they allow and encourage "hoarding" by suppliers in order to maintain a level price. Amazingly Diamonds aren't really effected by inflation either, they are an example of strong control exerted on the market.

 

[apple0154]

The average 25 year old is going to have less knowledge and less experience than the average 50 and is of course going to earn less as a result. Thus as one gains experience and knowledge and can add more value they will make more money. That's how young people get ahead by building their tool box of skills in their youth and taking advantage of those skill sets later in life.

There are of course always exceptions but that's focused on the large majority. Why the hell would you want to bring others down to help young kids who have their whole future ahead of them to grow and develop in their career? Where do you learn that kind of convoluted ass backwards type thinking?

It's not bringing people down. Reasonable inflation prevents the wealthy from doing nothing over a long period of time.

I'm not talking about an older, experienced person making a higher salary. Of course they would and should. I'm talking about those who live off their investments and don't work. If there wasn't reasonable inflation most younger people wouldn't be able to catch up because, as I've said numerous times, acquiring money is not simply a matter of working hard. If the older person is working they will not lose money as their pay check will continue to increase along with the younger person's pay check. They are on a level playing field, both working.

Look at it this way. People complain about the young person having to pay SS and higher medical for the elderly. If a young person could afford to buy their home sooner they would have more money than if paying rent so they would be able to help the elderly. It's all about helping each other, a concept sorely lacking with many here.

Instead of working against each other, trying to outdo everyone, co-operation advances all peoples. What is ass backwards about that?

 

[apple0154]

WoW there's one I disagree whith turbo-libs 1,000 percent. Bring the country down 30 percent and young people are relatively better off. WTF

What, exactly, is brought down? 30% less houses? 30% less food in the grocery store?

Perhaps I didn't make my point clear. Go back in history and we see why there was a high peasant population. They had no way to get ahead. They couldn't get in the game because once a person/family had money it simply transferred from generation to generation.

Today, one must invest or work or their savings slowly lose value. The logical thing is for them to help the young and the young will help them when they get older.

If a person didn't have to scrape to get somewhere they'd be more willing to help others.

 

[Topspin]

Ok that's not what you said at all. Also in no country or time has it been easier to make it here should one chose the education route.