This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Here Comes The Wage And Price Controls
Submitted by Simon Black of Sovereign Man blog,
Nearly four thousand years ago, King Hammurabi of Babylon laid out his eponymous “Hammurabi’s Code”, a series of laws that is still famous to this day.
Most people know Hammurabi’s Code as “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Yet what few realize is that the code was actually one of the original attempts at government wage and price controls.
Hammurabi’s Code decreed, for example, that the daily rate of pay for a tailor would be five grains of silver, and a farm laborer would be six grains of silver. The cost of hiring a small animal for field work would be four bushels of corn. Etc.
Of course, Hammurabi’s attempts to control prices didn’t work one bit. In his book The Old Babylonian Merchant: His Business and Social Position (published 1950), historian W.F. Leemans writes:
“Prominent and wealthy tamkaru [merchant traders] were no longer found in Hammurabi’s reign. Moreover, only a few tamkaru are known from Hammurabi’s time and afterwards . . .”
Despite the economic failures of Hammurabi’s experiment, though, wage and price controls have been tried again and again throughout history.
2,000 years later, Emperor Diocletian of the failing Roman Empire issued his Edict on Wages and Prices. The ancient Athenians tried (and failed) to set grain prices, and even had a small army of regulators to oversee the price controls. So did the the Zhou dynasty in ancient China.
Today you can see various forms of wage and price controls all over the world– from the blatant (Argentina) to the subtle.
Major farm subsidies in the United States, for example, are a form of price controls. Monetary policy (especially keeping interest rates at effectively zero) are a form of price controls.
Yet today President Obama is set to lauch another far more obvious form.
The central planner-in-chief is going to sign an Executive Order to require employers to expand overtime pay in the Land of the Free. This, on top of his recent proposal to increase the minimum wage 39% to $10.10 per hour (not that there’s any inflation).
Obviously this ‘decree by executive order’ strategy shows the political system for what it is: there is no republic, there are no checks and balances, there is no adherence to the Constitution.
They do whatever they want, however they want, with total immunity.
The troubling part about this executive order (aside from being yet another soon-to-fail wage control) is that it essentially abrogates millions of work contracts across the country.
Employers and their workers have long since agreed to terms of employment that may or may not include overtime pay.
Today President is unilaterally voiding any specific provisions about overtime pay in existing employment contracts, all in his sole discretion, and all without Congressional oversight.
The rule of law means nothing.
And even though any high school economics student can tell you that wage and price controls don’t work, the government is pressing ahead with vigor, damn the consequences.
Given their continued destruction of the middle class, perhaps it’s time we bring back ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’
»
- 21804 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Oh Goody! They always work so well! Another Nobel Peace Prize please!
It's somewhat better if they move to the more obvious forms of control. These are easier for people to see and stir up resistance, but on the other hand it's probably too late as most of the populace doesn't care about true liberty.
Forward comerades! Bread and Circus for all.
Right. But I think they (Obama et al) will have both the obvious forms of control as well as more subtle ones.
The pace of our decline is picking up... The fix is already in for Hillary in 2016 if she wants it.
Hope those dems like it when their kids go to the newly named high school of Barry Sorreto (or whatever) high school
Today President is unilaterally voiding any specific provisions about overtime pay in existing employment contracts, all in his sole discretion, and all without Congressional oversight.
The rule of law means nothing.
Rule of law? People still cling to that fantasy? Rule of law has ALWAYS meant rule of whatever the fuck happens to be convenient for the ruling classes at the moment. See: all of American history (with a few aberrations here and there).
And price controls, that's been another hallmark of the American economy. The key is, price controls and monopolies have always been OK - better yet encouraged - when your net worth is above a few mil + you're part of the elite class, but not when you're part of the labour force.
Free markets for the poor, communism for the rich - always.
You have the fucking internet people, look at your economic history for ten seconds.
It's mind-boggling that people can come on here daily and witness rampant price fixing on a global scale and not understand the current and historical implications. Not to mention the obvious connection to the ruling class vs labour force.
Price fixing? Here you go:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2...
http://www.oftwominds.com/photos2014/Fed-SPX2.png
But, but, but - I thought there was no inflation.
The most important good is money because it is fungible into all products and services.
The price of money is the interest rate.
Central Bank control of interest rates is the ultimate price manipulation, and therefore the root of most distortions in the world economy, along with money printing, which is another major cause of distortions in the world economy.
Hillary as president only makes sense. The 2 most powerful positions in the free world will be filled by hideous babushkas. Can't you just picture Yellen and Clinton sipping meal replacement shakes as the free world melts down at their feet from a pyre of worthless script?
It will make one wax poetic at the singular vision of manly strength of Barry resolutely drawing lines in red crayon in the oval office.
Makes even more sense given that any criticism of them will be labeled "Sexism."
Which, of course, was likely the goal of all of the "movements" in the Sixties.
Hideous babushkas? I was thinking more along the lines of a pair of obese, aging Communist Lesbians...
"Forward comerades! Bread and Circus for all."
Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naïvely, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books.
Étienne de La Boétie
Must read book
"forty centuries of wage and price controls"
Here it's Free
http://mises.org/books/fortycenturies.pdf
does that mean we are going off or on the hookers and blow standard? i am confused
Wutta surprise!!! WTF else would any one expect from such an arrogant, narcissitic, pathological lying, illegal alien, kenyan muslin sociopathic ignoramous in chief.... too bad there is no congress awake enough to pay attention to the numerous violations of the oath of office of this thing masquerading as a human which seems like impeachable offenses... but their motto must be see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil...
I like your list, but once again you forgot to add that he's also gay.
Of all those things, that is what is important to you? How bizarre.
Amazing, but why aren't all members of congress up in arms at these usurpations of power by the executive branch? Not just repub, but the demos should be worried too - won't always have Obameo as president.........unless he.............
HOTT CAJI Report Treason 1
HOTT CAJI Report Treason 2
HOTT CAJI Report Treason 7
They're not up in arms because it's not happening to THEM! Diana Feinstein will get on the senate floor and rant for an hour if he tries to control her wages...
....and then immediately vote for a salary increase for all Congressional members and POTUS.
Which of course Obama will sign with much aplomb.
Perhaps it is strateeeegery on their part. Give The 0'Bamabot the rope with which to hang himself.
How much rope does it take to hang this weak-ass piece of shit?
LOL, WTF???? Why do you act as if politics is real?
Meanwhile, the only people in DC who believe that are known as "freshman congressional representatives."
And I'd bet it doesn't take too long for them to be disabused of the notion. Like say, one night with some hookers and blow.
Fuck off Obungler, shank-o-potus!
lol - if I had his swing I would have quit at 14, what a fukn spaz...
If you have veggies on your Dominos pizza it's a very healthy meal according to CEO...
This has nothing to do with wages or setting prices - this is about getting votes.
It's about keeping the senate, so The One can replace more federal judges and ideally a Supreme Court justice or two with anti American constitution burning sociopaths.
Massive payback to the Trial Lawyers. Great job Obummer, now all small business will be sued and even more parasitic lawyers will flourish in Amerika!! All Hail Dear Leader!!
WTF happens when all the cockroach lawyers have sued all the businesses in extinction and there are no businesses left except the cockroaches?
"Glorious Revolution" achieved?
No small business can be sued under this Executive Order. Any such attempted suit will be thrown out of court, and the lawyer who brings it will likely be sanctioned.
Fighting in court is the prelude of fighting on the battle field. Government is a group of people with the right to initiate violence against the innocent. It always ends the same way.
The whole reason he' doing this is to try and generate some wage inflation. Of course it helps with votes from his constiuency as well. The Fed has failed to generate significant inflation becuase they are pushing on a string. Yes there are higher prices but wages won't follow. Therefore, it creates stagnation. Exactly where we are today.
They have to get wages up to start the inflationary spiral.
Wage inflation and the corresponding increase in payroll taxes.
Maybe that experiment you guys started in 1776 isn't over yet. Maybe you're only just now morphing into your final economic and political regime. And that whole "land of the free"-crap was, you know, just for laughs.
It really wasn't land of the free, it was "this land of plenty" which then was turned into the land of free doom.
Republics are fragile and easily go off-balance. We are still in early days.
All republics have fallen, every single one.
Rome, which we were built on only lasted around 400ish years before decaying into the empire.
The colonies started 400 years ago, we are following a very similar timeline.
Yes. It seems to me that big countries are well-nigh impossible to govern as republics. We'll see if technology allows us to keep this one going.
There's a reason for the multiple layers of government in the constitutional democracy of the US.
It's built to catch a top end political collapse without breaking a sweat. Hence 'the united states of america'. It is engineered to be N+4, the escape hatch from tyrany as it was built. The states rights cord gets pulled, federal army is dissolved and all troops go back home because it is in a collective agreement that all states say it's not working. Therefore all problems on th top end don't concern them as a State. If the state is completely crooked. Then you go to the County and do the same thing. If the county is run by boss hog, then you break the county by the townships.
Four safety nets to catch what matters in a country. It was never a flag. Or a song. Or parade. Or hat. Or a gun. It's the people that live there that's all that matters. The way a constitutional democracy is built is all of it done without firing a single shot at your neighbours. It only costs hand shakes and ink, maybe some hurt feelings but better than murdering each other over someone else debt that wasn't ever going to be paid.
Solution is right in front of your eyes, good luck.
It's not those 4 layers in your country that are drawing my attention these days, but rather your military and intelligence apparatus in correlation with your current government.
You know, I'm really starting to believe that our western societies are taking a turn in a very dangerous direction and quite frankly, the US more so right now than the European Union, because of its more advanced technological and military capabilities along with its geopolitical unity, which give it a head start over Europe. I hope that Europe will remember the bitter lessons of the thirties, where democracies were questioned because of economic hardship, thus giving way to authoritarian regimes. And fascist or communist, to me those are simply different labels for the same dehumanizing repression. But Western Europe is not the issue here, because of its growing lack of importance
The hunt for two young terrorists in Boston keeps popping up in my mind: an entire city raided by militarized policemen in black outfits, forcing everybody to stay inside and going from door to door. All this for two guys? Yes, their crime was heinous and yes, it goes without saying that their victims have all my sympathy. But just two guys? In an entire city? How afraid has the American people become to allow for that kind of governmental intrusion in their lives? Obama is acing most American citizens into submission with these events. In Europe, we have had our fair share of cruel terrorist attacks in the seventies and eighties, in airports and train stations, with numerous casualties, but to my knowledge that has never led us to lock down an entire city. The Boston episode is a powerful image for any European with some basic knowledge of the years of occupation by the nazis, what with the black uniforms turning up at your doorstep in "nacht und nebel". Let's hope I'm wrong about this, but the democratic west now follows a very dangerous path and I'm afraid the US is leading the way this time. Again, don't get me wrong, by this rant I do not want to imply that Europe has higher moral standards, no, we simply do not have this same level of geopolitical unity and military power and therefore we are far less dangerous to the world.It was a powerful image for us liberty minded US folks as well. Completely agreed on the turn for the worst.
The real issue is before corrupt governments could only extend so far into people's lives, and corupt governments would slowly become ignored by the pubic with a growing black market until the corruption dissolved.
But today with advances in technology the ability for a government to implement a much more fundamental level of control makes the potential for a corrupt government to gain near permanent control much more realistic.
The EU at least has very strong privacy and similar rules. However you are ruled by unelected career criminals in Brussels. At least in the US we maintain the ILLUSION of an elected government. The EU does not even have that unfortunately
In the EU it's playing out on two different levels for the moment: sovereign and European, but yes, the frightening bit over here (as far as I am concerned) is that we are faced with increasingly intrusive EU regulations. And in spite of the fact that we also have European elections, this level remains quite elusive for most Europeans, yet it is rapidly gaining power. Maybe the one thing that might keep it in check, is the fact that we remain an odd collection of different nationalities.
Not for the better but there is a chance your problem will be swept aside by Russian tanks.
What democratic west?
It's a nice story that sells a movie or a book, but democracy hasn't been seen for around 110 years in either Europe or the US. It wasn't just Europe that was dirt poor, the US was as well. Everyone spent too much, rolled 6's and it turned into a shit show of welshed bets. Europe got turned into into swiss cheese because it's really hard building homes that don't last centuries being passed from family name to family name. Easiest way to push an expansion of capital, is to destroy all the capital that could never be yours. Then to keep everyone occupied, you create the bureaucratic nightmare straight from the pages of Asterix and the 12 tasks.
And europe swallowed that load. They've been getting ass fucked since by taxes, inflation, energy, clothes, gum, army toys, party hats, etc. Inch by inch getting choked to death in governmental programs that are more acronym than a service or function. Meanwhile borrowing well over their GDP's for decades, the party line being pass the buck and when that doesn't work. Have a war over whatever is handy.
In the US endless wars made damn sure every home was broken and burying someone. The old men that survived it to today describe being drunk for twenty years. Shell shocked, drunk and broke, they brainwashed them all for the next 70 years. Positioned the media image of ruthless savage warriors externally and internally unicorns shitting skittles and good times. Every second advertisement yet another goddamned beer ad, the only reason their plan is working so well is because you can convince a drunk of anything.
As much as people slag on each other's countries, when you are a travelling to them and see them first hand with no expectations. A common theme pops up. People are generally pretty nice no matter where you go as long as you are nice to them. Doesn't mean you stop keeping an eye on your wallet. But keep the TV drama for telenovelas, truth is more valuable than gold on this world now. Not bullshit.
If you want throw pseudo-concerned at something, how about Venezuela? Don't hear much about that.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/venezuelan-beauty-quee-fatally-sho...
Miss Venezuela was killed four weeks ago. Imagine that, your are crowned the best example to women in your country:
Then some dumb fuck blows your head off for yelling too loud for being concerned people are starving. And your european/north american by-line is beauty queen shot.
So if the repeat preformance of World war X is a concern; you need to get your priorities straight and focus and less at baffling yourself with bullshit. There are more than just two or three countries and a handful of people on earth. So who gives a flying fuck about people that have running water currently because I don't see much reason to pay attention to nasty, spoiled, pampered brats that 'run things'. Maybe drop that neck down a bit and look at what's in front of your own eyes at what's actually happening.
The solution is Localism. We began as a decentralized nation, but without proper measures in place to keep it centralized, government power invariably consolidates and grows. Here is the blueprint http://www.amazon.com/Localism-A-Philosophy-Government-ebook/dp/B00B0GAC...
That's the nice thing about constitutional democracies, if you find enough people around you that believe in the same general idea then you co-ordinate on seeing what works. If it doesn't, then you try something else.
Price controls do work, in 1980 we drilled down 2000 feet and pumped the oil out, it would top out at $40/bbl, and gas was around a dollar a gal. Today we drill to 25000 feet, oil gushes out the ground, sometimes uncontrolably, and tops out between $100-150/bbl and gas is now $3-4/gal. Price controls work, if you allow them too.
Ouch, did it hurt you that much?
That ain't "price controls", pal.
No shit Sherlock, it was price controls, now it's the lack of them.
Do you understand "prices?"
No, i'm a law man by trade.
"No, i'm a law man by trade."
Can you clarify? Books or Guns?
either way its a license to intimidate...
Bemoaning the demise of the middle class as an argument against increasing wages.
Nope...no irony there...
Without working poor there is only non-working poor. Working poor is better for the middle class, in part, because some of the working poor find ways to elevate themselves to middle class which makes the middle class stronger (numbers, money, votes).
What you should be noticing is the inflation being inflicted on the poor, working or not. When prices rise, the poor pay more (the rich, having touched the money earlier in the cycle, bought at lower prices). What's more, the resulting increasing numbers of non-working poor are given "assistance" which is used to manipulate them for votes and profits. Who pays for this? Why it gets passed onto the now shrinking middle class. A shrinking middle class means that there are fewer opportunities for the poor to move up. Artificially inflating the wages of the poor makes for more poor and fewer middle class. The numbers of rich stay about the same but the $$$ needed to be considered rich skyrocket far and away beyond what the poor and middle classes can even conceive.
The rich have successfully manipulated the poor and middle classes against each other. They have even convinced a lot of people that they shouldn't want to be rich like the rich but famous entertainers the rich can rent for an evening at the house. Today the rich own anyone to some degree.
On the other hand, if you insist on increasing the wages of the poor, you should increase the wages of the middle class. They are just about as far behind the rich as the poor. What's the difference between $10 and $50,000 compared to $1,000,000,000 - 0.00000001% versus 0.000005%, less than a penny to the rich man.
When a rich man like Obama comes along and says he has a plan to help you, run. The only person being helped is the rich man. Since it isn't voluntary some people would call it slavery. You call it ironic.
Don't complain. Eat it for 3 years. Let him piss more people off so that you can show Democrats the door.
Fat chance the democraps will be shown the way out... fat chance...
Aww, you're so cute. You actually think dems are different from repubs. Hey, Easter's coming soon. wanna meet the Easter bunny. I can arrange it for a small fee..
Yep, any Democrats shown the door will be replaced by Republiturds like McCain, McConnell, Graham, Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and all the rest right here on Jilligans Island.
Land of the Free to lose in real wages while the top 1% "takmaru"s of today are free to rack it all up. Free to be a slave, that's what it is.
Why stop there...he should also mandate that employees receive 10 paid holidays, four weeks paid vacation and a pension plan. I thought he had a pen and a phone???
Like the fed and state workers.....fuckers
That's just for new Federal employees, it only gets better for each year you continue working for Uncle Sam until you reach POTUS level where you can go golfing everyday and then go on vacation every few weeks or so, or when things get rough out in the real world.
What everyone needs to realize the U.S. is a Keynesian system. This system is deficit spending and wage/price controls.
It seems wage controls are basically already in place with hidden inflation. The Fed and .gov changed the formula so those not paying attention (the majority) don't see it. Once the Fed and .gov gets an inflation of wages (the majority) probably will think they are better off as their purchasing power continues to decrease.
This is for.the hispanic legal and 'undocumented'....dont you get it
Everyone else.is and will continue to be unemployed (able)
In reality, the Executive Order you cite only requires that any federal contractor selected for a new federal service contract pay a minimum wage of $10.10/hr. Meaning the federal government will not approve contractors for future work who do not pay a minimum wage of $10.10/hr. Do you deny that the President has the statutory authority to issue such an order?
First of all this president is denied the right through the constitution simply by a matter of birth, and secondly there is no place in the constitution which authorizes any president the power to issue said executive order.
On the contrary, the Constitution requires the Executive to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". If the federal government has trouble working with contractors who pay their employees less than $10.10/hr, due to the concerns cited in the order, then the Constitution can be read as requiring the federal government to work only with contractors who pay higher.
Now you are just making shit up. The constitution requires him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed (side note: He's done a bang up job of that now hasn't he?), it does not authorize him to issue an executive order to enact such a law.
The Constitution states that only Congress has the power to legislate, or make laws, while the President only has the power to enforce the laws written by Congress, not make up laws or change laws written by Congress on the fly.
It's not a law, and it's not changing any law passed by Congress.
It's not a law. It's a rule for the federal government to follow when selecting contractors in the future. If Congress requires the federal government to do something requiring contractors, and if low-paid contractors don't do the job very well so the government can't get the job done that Congress required by statute, then the President has no choice, really, but to require the federal government to use higher-paid contractors for future contracts.
If it is a requirement by all citizens it is a law, and in this case it is illegal..... period. Another side note: nobody contracts for $7.25 an hour anyway. This is just a bunch of fluff as it is.
It's not required of all citizens. Nothing in this order requires anybody to pay $10.10/hr. But, if you want to get a federal contract in the future (no existing contract is affected), you have to pay at least $10.10/hr.
Now you are talking in circles. You just said that if 'I ' ever wanted to get a federal contract. Am I not a citizen? Are you? Then it is a law. Congress controls the power of the purse. Not the president.
Ruling by executive order without th approval of congress sets a very dangerous precedent for our future. People on all sides should worry when any president is not adhering to their constitutional limits of power, it's not worth any temporary politcal gains.
Precedent? You realize there are some 10,000 Executive Orders on the books going back to George Washington himself, right? Note that Obama has issued fewer orders than George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan at similar points in their administrations. Note also that Obama issued about the same number of orders in his first term as GHWBush did in his single term. So, I think this president is, currently, safely within precedent regarding Executive Orders.
Bush is indefensible in many ways but name me one Executive order by Bush that enacted legislation which is the job meant for Congress? There aren't any.
Of course Obama is setting new precedent, don't be blinded by politics. It isn't the issuance or number of executive orders that's a problem, it's whether the order oversteps congressional authority. Obama signed 40+ Executive Orders that change existing congressionally derived law.
Which ones?
Well, to start with, how about the ACA. You know like giving wavers to specific groups like unions, or pushing the mandate for small business back another year, or tinkering with the individual mandate.
Anyone else want to join in?
I don't think any of that was done by Executive Order. I think it was all done by agencies, which have broad discretion to interpret statutes under the APA.
You can research them. The last one was changing the date at which the individual mandate kicks in. Clearly defined by congressional law. but Obama changed the law by executive order.
Don't think that was an Executive Order. I think it was a regulation of the Treasury Department. Different legal things. Governed by the Administrative Procedure Act.
"Different legal things."
This gets to the heart of the matter. 1000 bad regulations can easily render 100 good laws ineffectual, and, regulations do, in effect, amount to laws — if you are in business. I really don't know how many "good" laws there are (probably less than 100), but the number of regulations may exceed the number of stars in the sky.
In the context of your understanding and historical perspective, what is the constututional basis to limit Presidential Executive Orders? How may arbitrary political power be constrained here?
Yes, unless you believe that "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."
Wow - once again, Obama takes a play from the Nixon playbook. From Cato Institute:
Price controls encourage the holders of capital to get creative in their swindles. Wage controls can sometimes work if you are willing to call out the National Guard to suppress workers. Wage and price controls just don't work to produce a happy society.
I have to give this one to the Sovereign Man. I have always wanted to work Hammurabi’s Code into one of my neighborhood debates but never quite succeeded.
Businesses will respond to the Kenyan by simply doing away with overtime, thus taking that much more away from Americans.
Unbelievable. If only we had a President who was a constitutional law professor, then stuff like this wouldn't happen. Oh wait...
Perhaps you can identify the provision of the U.S. Constitution, or any statute, that has been violated by this order?
Perhaps you could point me to the part of the U.S. Constitution that gives the President the authority to unilaterally change wages, and void contracts that were voluntarily entered into between two consenting parties?
The order says that the federal government will only contract, in the future, with contractors who pay a minimum of $10.10/hr. It's not voiding any existing contracts. The constitutional authority is in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5.
Uh, huh? And what about contracts already in effect?
Sound of crickets chirping...
Of course, I doubt ANYONE working for the federal government (directly or via contractors) makes less than $10 per hour. Which would mean, this is pure PR with zero substance.
CONTRACTS ALREADY IN EFFECT ARE NOT AFFECTED. NOT CHANGED IN ANY WAY. Please read the order for yourself.
Regardless of legalese, businesses will push back and this will create a robust black market alongside innovative labor techniques.
A presidential directive CAN ONLY EFFECT companies doing business with the federal government. What Nixon did was illegal, and if Obama, the reigning fool in the whilte house thinks that he can sign a law to override non-federal business then he is delusional, and if his signature effects non-federal business then HE IS A F**KING TYRANT.
He did not "sign a law" and he did not "override non-federal business" and he did not "abrogate" any work contracts. This article is free of facts, which is unfortunate because facts lead to understanding.
Well, here's a convenient fact left out, which group of people will be paying for Obama's folly?
Once again, the taxpayers.
Any business contracting with the Federal Government will have no problem increasing the wages of their employees working on a Federal contract because the know they can pass the costs back to the Federal Government.
And the Federal Government will then pick the pocket of taxpayers to pay for this largesse.
There's only one winner in this scheme and that's Uncle Sam.
He is legislating. Flatly illegal move by the Exec Branch. PERIOD.
No he's not. He's changing how the federal government selects contractors in the future. That's administration, not legislation.
Nixon acted legally under some sort of "economic recovery act" that Congress passed, giving him that power. The constitutionality of that law, of course, rests on Supreme Court doctrine that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to do whatever the fuck they want, so long as they keep paying supreme court justices their salary.
Forgive me for being off topic.
Jeffrey Corzine, former NJ gov’s son, dead at 31 | New York Post
http://nypost.com/2014/03/13/jeffrey-corzine-former-nj-govs-son-dead-at-31/
He was about to reveal where Corzine hid all the money. Had to go..
Expecting an improvement when the dems are voted out is like cheering the escape from the frying pan on your way to the fire.
we are all going to be rich!
more will be poor
Obama went to the Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner School of Economics.
And there they partied long nights with Maduro...
"The rule of law means nothing."
Then you don't understand what a law is. It is an opinion of a ruler with a bunch of guns. Obey slave, obey his law or stare in the barrel of the law maker's guns. What's so damn hard to understand about that?
As Mao was quoted as saying:
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. ... Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party."
It looks as if Maobama learned well at the foot of the master.
"Employers and their workers have long since agreed to terms of employment that may or may not include overtime pay."
This is rather an oversimplification. Most jobs I ever had the employers simply announced what they would pay and that's all the position would get. If you didn't like that then just go off and be unemployed. Not really this naively conceived noble negotiation between equals, which this rather ivory-towerish piece implies. Reminiscent of "perfect market knowledge" in trading.
Anyway, as another poster noted, even this "president" does have the right to alter the pay levels and terms of government contractors, so this article is rather a shrill objection which is off the mark.
I thought this article was going to be some interesting and relevant lesson from economic history, but it's instead just a jumped up opinion piece. Oh well, there's 5 minutes of life I'll never get back again!
Well we do allow a central authority controlled by a few players to set the base price of just about every product we use to build our economy. Most of which have exploded in price since the central authority has been given carte blanche to speculate with complete disregard for fundamentals and production. The belief that something will go up in value is enough to cause a substantial increase in price, far beyond what any reasonable supply disruption in a free market would cause.
Wall Street itself is price control. The polar opposite of a free market. A middle man is setting the price, not the producer of the product. MSRP is being dictated by the end seller, not the manufacturer.
SIMON BLACK -- who the F is this idiot?
Where does he come up with all this BS?
Usually a very smart guy
It's a faith-based post. He didn't even read the order.
His journalistic track record, as far as I've been keeping count, has been downright appalling. So much so that I've started ignoring his drivel all together.
The words "pretentious pompous arse" come to mind.
Yeah, he's waking up with cold sweat after Bachellet won in Chile. And he probably thinks Camila Vallejo is Satan's daughter.
A wage is a wage. If you typically work 50 hours a week, your wage will be adjusted to net the same result. Moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic to accomplish a sense of accomplishment in the face of a disaster. Obama...always doing something. No one will ever call him a "do nothing" president. We will see evidence of his actions for many years to come (those who survive). After all, he has been consumed with his "legacy", has he not? The fine line between fame and infamy. Bill Clinton needed Obama for his own redemption. He is looking better every day. As they say, it could always be worse and now we are seeing it.
The rule of law means nothing!
I can agree with Simon on that, but I'm not running from my problems to Chile or living in fear. I'm staying right here at home because I want a front row seat when the Bastille is stormed and and hangings begin in earnest.
Be careful what you wish for. Fate has a quirky sense of humor and you may find yourself on the wrong end of that rope.
I hear you, but there's worse things than dying!
Dang 22winmag, they only let me give you a thumbs up once!
"Monetary policy (especially keeping interest rates at effectively zero) are a form of price controls."
Total bullshit.
This is none other than wealth transfer and distorting the creative destruction racket right into the pockets of those that destroy.
Rewards for failure, as long as the failures are rich they are untouchable.
ZIRP is robbery on behalf of Fascism - why Black (who normally has a clue) spews misinformation is beyond reason.
Controlling the price to borrow money is definitely price control.
And yes with any price control there are winners and losers
Controlling the price of money is the ultimate, and worst, form of price control.
Obama's order only applies to companies that accept Federal contracts. If Congress doesn't allocate more funds to pay these higher wages, Obama will achieve something even Reagan failed to do: shrink the Federal government, in headcount at least (Obamacare has already forced state and local governments to slim down, thank you very much).
One way to deal with the higher minimum wage is to cut back the hours worked by garbage collectors, which means good times ahead for DC's notorious rat population.
We're nearing the point where anything Obama does hurts his own supporters, because his enemies have left the building.
An Oligargical attempt to stop overtime pay for poor schlumps, with a thin veneer of historical flummery.
Obama's initiatiave is more accurately described as wage support...not control. Direct subsidies to producers are best referred to as price support... price controls are tools used to supress prices.
The last attempt at wage and price CONTROLS in the US was made during the Nixon administration and proved ineffective in curing the inflation rampant after the Vietnam War fiasco. They were most unpopular with producers and the business elite....Nixon's support base, and quickly abandoned in favour of tax breaks for the same folks.
"Eye for an Eye", Tyler? Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!
So far, the collapse is producing fairly predictable results... I'm just waiting for the bizarre manifestations, like our own "ministry of happiness", for example. At least they'll be more entertaining.
had minimum wage keep pace with the bogus government inflation figures it WOULD be $10.10 an hour.
using the real inflation levels it would more than likely be closer to $15 an hour.
At the other end of the scale, the average CEO salary is now north of $7000 per hour. That has a huge negative impact on those companies' bottom lines. Given that the majority of CEOs (and CFOs) could be replaced by an accountant, paid $80k pa, something has to give. In a typical non-technology company (e.g. insurance, finance industry) there have been almost no new products or services in the last 50 years. A CEO should only be paid a percentage of profits derived from new product lines. Period. Internal improvements in productivity should fall on the shoulders of a COO so CEOs shouldn't be compensated for laying off workers. Also CEO compensation has zero benefit to the broader economy. Whereas a hike in minimum wages, especially if it came directly from the CEO/CFOs' benefits packages would have zero impact on those companies' bottom lines but it would provide a tangible benefit to the broader economy.
WTF?!
simon black trying to foment a revolution in the states from outside the country....hey, wait a minute...this sounds like a familiar theme...
so violence is the solution to a problem of government run amok?
well who the fuck voted the officials into government? YOU ALLwho are stupid enough to vote or not rich enough to fund a lobbyist army!!
WWJD?