"...WalMart could raise the wages of its workers to a minumum of $12 and all it would take would be for WalMart to raise their prices by 1% one-time. It would cost the average consumer $12 per year and again it would put hundreds of billions of dollars more into the consumer economy, and many of those dollars would go to WalMart."
Another ****stick who is an alleged GOP "tech millionaire"? How did this jackass get his money? Did he steal it?
I have to ask (as someone who really is such a person) because if he actually ran a real company in a real economy he knows all about double-entry accounting and there is no reason to believe that WalMart would get a larger ticket by that 1% price increase.
In other words what would happen is that while the price of an item would go up by 1% (on average) the total number of items would go down, and guess what -- this means that for each dollar that a WalMart employee would gain there would be a dollar that another person would no longer have -- that is, one they would lose.
There is thus no "addition" to the economy that would take place, as taking $20 out of your left pocket and putting it in your right does not make you $20 wealthier.
Give me 2 minutes opposing him on that channel and I'd rip him to pieces and spit out what's left.
Income inequality is not caused by minimum wages (or lack thereof) -- it comes from naked credit creation which trashes the ability of labor to save a percentage of income and not have it wantonly and intentionally destroyed by the unilateral actions of capital.
THAT is the cause of income and asset inequality -- legalized theft.
Nothing more or less.
These people are arguing for more theft and you are their intended victim.
Update: The nozzle's name who advocated this crap is Ron Unz from "Higher Wages Alliance." Yeah. Here's the segment; you're warned that vomiting up your lunch or dinner may result from watching it.
Earlier this year when the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel exposed a botched ATF sting in Milwaukee — that included agents hiring a brain-damaged man to promote an undercover storefront and then arresting him forhis work — ATF officials told Congress the failed Milwaukee operation was an isolated case of inadequate supervision.
They lied, in short.
If you remember one of the "crimes" they arrested someone for in Milwaukee was going to Gander Mountain, buying a gun and then selling it to this store. They arrested the seller for being a straw purchaser.
Perhaps under the black-letter definition of the law they had a point, but the fact of the matter is that the law is intended to punish those who buy a gun for a prohibited person to conceal that the felon (for example) is the real buyer.
In this case the store was a purported actual commercial operation which would not be a prohibited entity, and the person doing the buying passed a NICS check, so he wasn't a prohibited person. In addition the store solicited the sale by offering far more than the gun was worth, thereby inducing what in any other line of business would be an utterly-ordinary act of commerce -- you buy something low and sell it high.
That's the definition of what you want an economy to do -- right?
Never mind that ATF agents ran fake pawnshops and knowingly were buying things that were stolen, no questions asked -- effectively supplying a "sink" for thieves. In one case they apparently allowed a convicted felon to walk out of their fake "store" with a shotgun and told him how to saw it off so they could bust him for a more-serious offense!
But the worst of these scams had to be in Pensacola, where they hired a felon to run their pawnshop, thereby allowing them to charge anyone who sold their fake store a gun with delivery of a firearm to a felon. Never mind that pawnshops are licensed businesses in Florida which require not only a verified-clean background but in addition the issuance of a surety bond and, if the applicant has a net worth of over $50,000, disclosure of financial statements prepared by a licensed Florida CPA!
The public has every right to rely on the open and notorious existence of said pawnshop, given this statute, as clean and conclusive proof that the owner is not a convicted felon -- or if he was that whatever the circumstances once were he's now permitted to transact in this manner because the pawnshop is licensed and holds forth clean hands in this regard by the very definition of its existence.
You can't tell someone they're responsible to "know the law" only when it benefits the cops!
Oh, it's even better. They screw the landlords they "rent" from too.
Virtually every time.
Remember the ancient Chinese Curse?
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
One of the most-common chestnuts spread around is that the United States stands for and promotes Democracy. This is an outrageous and pernicious lie.
Democracy is a pair of wolves and a sheep having a vote over what to eat for dinner. In a Democracy minorities have no rights whatsoever, because as soon as you are 49.99% of the voting population or less you are instantly excluded from the political system and whatever the rest of the people want to do to you, they do without restriction.
The correct government form in order to protect everyone's rights is a Constitutional Republic.
That's what America is -- at least in theory.
Have you noticed that this is never what our government or media claims, or what we publicly support?
Such a system of government support cannot exist in a functional Constitutional Republic. That it does exist is proof that the current South African government is illegitimate and therefore the people have the right to overthrow it.
The people in our nation went to war -- both civilly and against King George -- to form and protect a Constitutional Republic. Such a government is arguably the only just and thus supportable form of government that can exist, since it by definition is prevented from derogating and violating the rights of anyone, minority or not.
All other forms of government, under any rational system of logical debate, devolve into illegitimacy and thus the people have the right if not the obligation to reduce them to rubble by the means of their own choosing.
Perhaps you should read The Declaration of Independence today, and contemplate whether what The Founders gave us still exists, whether we promote what we were given, if not whether any government that instead promotes "democracy" -- the eating of the sheep by the wolves -- is worthy of support and consent.
Finally, you may wish to consider whether The Declaration was just a set of empty words or whether it was, instead, a statement of principles that forms the only valid justification for our government to have a right to exist.
I don't pretend to have those answers, but I do think they're valid questions.
Need an illustration for how health care is exempt from laws that should result in everyone involved doing 20 years of hard time, being fined a million dollars, and that's per-incident? Here you go:
Lang has sought answers from his insurance company, Humana, which in its hospital contracts negotiated a discount of the original $11,198 emergency bill to $5,599. The couple must pay that remaining $5,599.
"It almost seems as if Humana gets together with the hospital and figures out the maximum amount that can be charged while still keeping the total under the patient's deductible," Lang wrote in a letter to Humana. "This way, the hospital gets as much revenue as possible and the insurance company isn't out any money."
What happened here is illegal in any other line of business and is a blatant violation of the Sherman Act.
That is, the hospital quite-clearly used its knowledge of the customer's deductible to set the price. What's worse is that it appears they did it after the service was performed. What makes it even more-galling is that if you have no insurance you can often negotiate and get a price 1/10th of the "insured" price. As a person with only catastrophic coverage (zero for "routine" things like a doctor visit) I have found that I can almost-always pay cash for less than the insured bill-back amount. When it comes to common drugs like antibiotics you can walk into a WalMart and get a generic for $4 or thereabouts -- if you're not insured. If you are then the co-pay is typically $20 or five times as much!
All of this would normally violate not only the Sherman Act (conspiracy to restrain trade and fix prices) but also, in the case of the bill being set only after service was performed, be a contract of adhesion rendering the entire charge voidable.
If I tried this sort of thing as an Internet Provider I would have not only been trashed by my competition I would have been indicted, and with good cause.
Auto insurance companies have been tagged for far-less onerous price-fixing of this general sort in that they have repeatedly tried to force insureds to use third-party replacement body parts -- which are both cheaper and inferior to OEM. State Farm got sued over this, among others, and with good cause.
If you want to know where the problem lies in the medical industry it's right here.
And if you want proof that costs would fall by 75 or even 90% were we to simply enforce the law in this regard, see that linked article where had the person not had insurance they would have been offered a price that was a literal 10% of what they were ultimately forced to pay.
How is this "insurance"? And more to the point, if you're forced to buy into Obamacare, guess what this means?
It means you will be screwed in this fashion -- with certainty -- despite the fact that under any reasonable reading of The Sherman Act (15 USC) this sort of policy and practice is black-letter illegal.
At this week’s GigaOm Roadmap conference, Samsung SVP Curtis Sasaki made a plea for better uses cases in the device world. To paraphrase – it’s not about all the technology, it’s about the services. At the same time his company was suggesting a future more familiar to Samsung watchers – more technological prowess.
Samsung, never one to be left behind, is in fact converging with Netflix in the next generation of devices and services. Netflix announced 4K streaming video plans last week. Samsung is headed the same way.
To put some context on this a 4k signal requires a minimum 36Mbps bandwidth to run in any sort of credible fashion. And that's a minimum and assumes high compression. 1080p, the current BluRay standard, has a maximum 40Mbps data rate now and Netflix's "HD" service cannot even approach that quality today.
Netflix claims it is going to "deliver" 4k signals while consuming 15Mbps, which is laughable for actual 4k content, particularly where there's a lot of motion on the screen. What's even more laughable is that there are virtually no consumer-grade connections available that can deliver even that throughput on a constant-drain basis with reasonably-low jitter.
And that's a problem, because it is not just burst rates when you're talking about video. You have to be able to maintain transfer rates end-to-end for an hour or two at a crack, or the video "stutters."
I have run a lot of long-term data flows between places in the last few years for various purposes, including keeping systems in-sync between disparate locations. It ain't cheap to buy service that can deliver continual delivery of data on a high-rate basis. Oh sure, you can buy so-called "20Mbps" service, but that's a burst rate and will never be sustained without drops or problems over an hour or two. That's just not going to happen, and even if it did -- it would hold one user on Netflix and nothing else in the house at the same time, with their crappy compression model that displays highly-degraded "4k" content.
Never mind on mobile -- you can just flat forget it. Not that it has any value on a 5" screen, mind you -- your eyes can't resolve that and neither can current screen technology.
In short these guys are pumping 1999-style hype all over again and you're the sucker who is supposed to go out and buy the stock of these companies.
Anyone who actually believes you're going to have this claimed service delivered for $9/month and a $20/month cable internet bill (or anything like it) has rocks in their head. Those who "invest" on this sort of crap salesjob are going to find out exactly how it plays out when the collision between bandwidth demanded and consumer wallets occurs, and that collision is going to be highly inelastic.
/Long popcorn with my feet kicked up on the ottoman.
Where We Are, Where We're Heading (2013) - The annual 2013 Ticker
The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.
Looking for "The Best of Market Ticker"? Check out Ticker Classics.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.