|"Economic Model" by Herr D on heromachine by Shelob's request.|
[dreamstate integration protocol successful on eleventh try, Hairy's neuralink connection established] Hairy? Further communications result in quandary. Observe:
Where economic resources total a non-infinite number, E. Exploitative businesses conduct business at efficiency, f. Wages, living, total W. Unknown number N.
f = (W-N), but W-N is proportional to E-N(t) for all integrated forms, regardless of other factors, multipliers, set values, or limits on 't.' So efficiency is decided in relation to destruction of total.
Demonstrated paradox does not directly relate that sweatshops are repugnant as news media declares, but paying employees a 'non-living' wage is sought after by businesses. "Businesses should be ashamed of exploiting the under-privileged and disadvantaged." --Smith.
So, they just aren't ashamed of themselves.
Though you say they should be. How can efficiency and self-destruction be analogous? This does not compute.
It computes because the same forces that are upholding the economy are helping make the economy worse. 'A frog does not drink up the pond in which it lives.' Some Native American saying, I think. Where did all THAT wisdom go?
Perhaps they traded it for the casino that just opened.
[raucous laughter] That's not it. Funny--but not it.
Won't raising the minimum wage solve the problem?
That--won't help. Not a bad idea by itself, just--it won't be enough to solve the problem.
Initial data conundrum. Why is that action insufficient?
Well, okay then, project the outcome on an economic model.
[sixteen seconds pass] Suitable female form found. Ask Herr D for money-covered nude picture?
No. [thoughtful, lascivious pause] No. I mean project what will happen to the money. 'Follow the money.'
[sixteen seconds pass] It would appear that this is a cycle, rather than true progress. Minimum wage rises, businesses raise prices to ensure profit, and the cycle repeats.
What? [shakes self to focus on economics] Yes! As long as businesses don't have a standard to meet, they'll not meet one. Things will appear to change, but won't really.
It's actually pretty simple. Just not easy. If it becomes law to NEVER compensate anyone in a company more than a set multiplier more than the lowest paid employee, companies will still be run in a capitalist manner. Then we can start seeing the companies fail if they're not run well.
So you are against the bailout. You did say Obama made some decisions you didn't like. What alternative?
I would have suggested a full FSLIC insurance payout. Most people's money are always at least partially insured. The bank probably should've failed. Their employees were probably richer than the average unemployed person. You know they were encouraged savings--they worked at a bank. Besides, shouldn't a corporate takeover have rescued most of the jobs anyway?
At the time, you commented that you understood Obama's thinking.
I think Obama was going for consumer confidence. Very important in a capitalism, and if no one had opposed his other work, I hope he would've had the time and initiative to act in a more capitalist manner. I DEFINITELY think the bank management should have been instantly retired without more than government-sanctioned standard severance pay. The government owns lots of things, so what's one more bank, huh?
You have declared your economics sense to be incomplete. Are you sure about this?
I don't know. I'd love for anyone to explain to us all in comments why any part of what I'm saying is wrong. I'm pretty sure people don't comment as much on sites they see are right about most things.
Are you trying to use psychology to encourage commenting?