--continued--
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrnoodle
Closing the gap, indeed. Shove a potato into the gap between your liberal fangs [/breathes deeply, imagines a cigarette].
|
*mute*
Dude, I'm not a liberal. I'm not insulted, but since we're gettin all honest with each other, I thought you should know. I'm a progressive. But the liberals, they're cool too! They're the people that brought you
The Weekend.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrnoodle
Oh yeah, the hypocrisy thing. Why does the zero-sum idea apply to the potato farmer and not to the country as a whole? I'm no economist, so I can't answer in a way that will immunize me from jabs from intellectuals and arrogant pricks. But I know that the potato farmer is concerned about a far smaller set of economic factors than "the country" is. Raising the minimum wage to, say, $10/hour will run him out of business, and it really won't do the employee much good to win some kind of moral victory, yet still be out of a job.
|
No problem, I never mistook you for an economist anyway. Just be a man. Yourself. If it's cold outside and your hands are freezing, but your pockets are warm, why would you deny your hands the comfort of those warm pockets? Of course you wouldn't . But if you're out in the cold and you have a knit cap but no shoes, you have a problem. Sure, you might redistribute your cap to your feet, but now you have a cold head. And if you have only shoes, your head's just out of luck. If you need it and you have it you'll use it.
Now imagine you're a father and a husband. You have plenty of money coming in, would you let your children and your wife go shoeless cold and hungry? No, you'll share. Duh. I mean, they don't make the money, but all share.
Do you require the scorekeeper of your beer league softball team to count the runs you score as yours or the team's? You have surplus ammo and the other guy in your recon patrol is out? Share? Probably. Would you carry some of the items from the too heavy pack of one of your hiking buddies or leave the dope behind? Man, you share the burden all the time.
It's in the interest of the producer to have consumers that are able to complete the deal. Absent other motivating factors, why would a business pay a cent more for labor? How does starving a necessary aspect of the whole work toward the good of the whole?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrnoodle
...sorry, back to the media bias thing.
|
Right. On the whole, you'd be far healthier if you smoked enough cigarettes that you could no longer see FOXNews on the tv across the room.