A Primer on The Minimum Wage that Even Liberals Can (hopefully) Understand

A little primer regarding the 'minimum wage.'

Understand exactly what a hike in the 'minimum wage' entails. 

A compulsory hike in the minimum wage means that the price of productivity will increase. 

This means that the level of what one used to purchase per dollar is less; therefore, one will be required to spend more to get the same amount of productivity. 

What a set amount of money bought before the hike in the minimum wage, can no longer be bought for the same amount of money. After the hike, more money must be spent, to get the same level of productivity. 

Money, is then, by definition, devalued. When money is devalued, the amount of it required to purchase a given good or service increases.

This increase is called INFLATION. 

One of two things MUST happen in order to regain equilibrium between resources spent and goods produced or purchased:

1. Pass along the increased price (inflation) of goods or services to the customer; or

2. Make sure the money you spend on the manufacturing/service end results in more productivity. 

Option number one results in inflation in the marketplace (rise in prices to purchase goods or services) passed on to all. This means that the money earned after the minimum wage hike has less purchasing power than the money earned prior to the minimum wage hike. This effectively negates the purchasing power experienced via any raise in pay to the worker as a result of hiking the minimum wage. 

Option Number Two results in fewer workers doing more work per hour for the increased pay they get. Instead of seven people on a shift, to keep the same productivity without passing increased costs to the consumer, there may be only five people required to do the work that seven people once did. This effectively results in a reduction in the present work force at worst, or in preventing the company from hiring additional workers after attrition, at best. 

This, of course, results in higher unemployment and/or lower labor participation rates, as there are now fewer jobs to be had. 

In other words, contrary to all the magical thinking going on in the White House and in the war rooms of the DNC, and yes, among the democrat party faithful, there are no sustainable benefits to a *compulsory* increase in the minimum wage.

White House is Staging a Bloodless Coup

OK, folks--here's the deal- I don't think too many people are realizing this:

1. We currently gather TEN TIMES the amount of revenue required to service our debt, EVERY MONTH.

2. The 14th Amendment states that WE MUST honor and service our debts; meaning that paying and servicing debt MUST COME FIRST. 

3. Barack Obama has been threatening that we WILL DEFAULT on our debt if the debt ceiling is not raised in two days. 

4. The ONLY way this can happen, is if Barack Obama IGNORES the 14th Amendment and REFUSES to service the debt. This means that Barack Obama MUST OPENLY DEFY the Constitution to bring about what he threatens will happen. 

5. Understand also that I believe that Barack Obama FULLY INTENDS to carry out his threat. I believe that Barack Obama MEANS, in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment, to ALLOW the United States to go into default. Like a terrorist with his finger on the button of his suicide vest, he is threatening to DESTROY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES, placing our economy in RUIN, unless Congress meets his every demand.

6. In effect, Barack Obama is staging what amounts to nothing less than a COUP-- a complete usurpation of the power of the purse that IS EXCLUSIVELY THE PURVIEW of the duly and locally elected United States House of Representatives. 

7. In completely and WILLFULLY ignoring his Constitutional responsibilities with respect to the 14th Amendment, Barack Obama has effectually denounced the primacy of the U.S. Constitution. He is effectively governing by EXECUTIVE FIAT.

In other words, Barack Obama HAS THROWN AWAY THE CONSTITUTION and is in effect GOVERNING AS A DICTATOR! 

UNDERSTAND THIS, PEOPLE--THIS IS NOT HYPERBOLE!

...And I shake my head...

Bush says he had to wreck the economy, to save the economy.

US President George W. Bush said in an interview Tuesday he was forced to sacrifice free market principles to save the economy from "collapse." "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," Bush told CNN television, saying he had made the decision "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse." Bush's comments reflect an extraordinary departure from his longtime advocacy for an unfettered free market, as his administration has orchestrated unprecedented government intervention in the face of a dire financial crisis. "I am sorry we're having to do it," Bush said. But Bush said government action was necessary to ease the effects of the crisis, offering perhaps his most dire assessment yet of the country's economy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, King, but isn't the only way to save the free market to enact and to engage in behavior consistent with those very principles that make it viable? Can one "save" the free market by enacting policies that are antithetical to same, and which by their very nature and in every other known circumstance act to thwart the growth of a free-market economy and benefits thereof? If so, then when is the correct time to right the ship back on that course of economic freedom and the prosperity (and risk) that goes along with it? Can one merely parcel a free market and expect it to then flourish?

You know, Bush has been more than gracious toward his malevolent detractors lo' these past eight years, what with the "new tone" and all. Could it be that President Bush is leaving Obama and the democrats (and, unfortunately this nation) with a poke in the eye? Somehow, that just doesn't seem to be his style, which, to this point, has been largely to go along to get along. Or, alternatively, has what has been at best a short-term pseudo-fix (if that) been enacted merely in an effort to provide the Obama administration with a set of training wheels, and to hell with our collective futures?

"I feel a sense of obligation to my successor to make sure there is not a, you know, a huge economic crisis. Look, we're in a crisis now. I mean, this is -- we're in a huge recession, but I don't want to make it even worse."

Question Mr. President: have the bailouts really made anything better? In the short or in the foreseeable long term?

I didn't think so.

Shanghai belches... world reacts.

Shift happens?

The "butterfly effect" was in no truer form than today on Wall Street:

First, Cheney almost buys it,

Then this...



Fasten your seatbelts, kids... it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Looks like today was neck-deep in the Chinese Curse.

Literally.
-------------------------