In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law does not provide any jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.
All demand curves are falling, and the demand for hiring labor is no exception. So laws that prohibit employment at any wage that is relevant to the market must result in outlawing employment and causing unemployment.
If the minimum wage is, in short, raised from $7.25 to $9.00 an hour, the consequence is to disemploy, permanently, those who would have been hired at rates in between these two rates. Since the demand curve for any kind of labor is set by the perceived marginal productivity of that labor, this means that the people who will be disemployed and devastated by this prohibition will be precisely the "marginal" (lowest wage) workers, e.g. blacks and teenagers, the very workers whom the advocates of the minimum wage, such as president Obama, are claiming to foster and protect!
The advocates of the minimum wage and its periodic boosting reply that all this is scare talk and that minimum wage rates do not and never have caused any unemployment. Okay, if the minimum wage is such a wonderful anti-poverty measure, and can have no unemployment-raising effects, why are you helping the working poor by such piddling amounts? Why stop at $9.00 an hour? Why not $20 an hour? $100? $1,000?
It is obvious that the minimum wage advocates do not pursue their own logic, because if they push it to such heights, virtually the entire labor force will be disemployed. In short, you can have as much unemployment as you want, simply by pushing the legally minimum wage high enough.
The fact is that they have always been shrewd enough to stop their minimum wage demands at the point where only marginal workers are affected, and where there is no danger of disemploying, for example, white adult male workers with union seniority. When we see that the most ardent advocates of the minimum wage law have been the AFL-CIO, and that the concrete effect of the minimum wage laws has been to cripple the low-wage competition of the marginal workers as against higher-wage workers with union seniority, the true motivation of the agitation for the minimum wage becomes apparent.
This is only one of a large number of cases where a seemingly defective persistence in economic fallacy only serves as a mask for special privilege at the expense of those who are supposedly to be "helped."
Once in a while, AFL-CIO economists and other knowledgeable liberals will drop their mask of economic fallacy and candidly admit that their actions will cause unemployment; they then proceed to justify themselves by claiming that it is more "dignified" for a worker to be on welfare than to work at a low wage. This of course, is the doctrine of many people on welfare themselves. It is truly a strange concept of "dignity" that has been fostered by the interlocking minimum wage-welfare system.
Unfortunately, this system does not give those numerous workers who still prefer to be producers rather than parasites the privilege of making their own free choice. Minimum wage laws guarantee more unemployment. Period.
sources: Murray Rothbard, Thomas Sowell, studies
The narrative tells of a dispossessed Palestine whose rights have been usurped by colonial invaders who have conquered their land through the Zionist enterprise. They are, in is claimed, made to suffer by the imposition of a European Holocaust which has left them paying the price. Driven out of their land by Jewish interlopers the remnants have been occupied and oppressed by a brutal ‘Nazi’-like regime.
No country has a greater legitimacy, under international law, to exist than Israel. If Israel does not possess that legal right to sovereignty then no nation on earth can claim greater legitimacy than Israel. To fully understand this, one needs to understand the unfolding of modern history and the international resolutions that give Israel its full and exclusive right to sovereignty.
There are legal rulings that give clear status to disputed territories.
Central to the Israel-Palestinian issue is the matter of Jerusalem. Khaled Mashal, the Hamas representative in Damascus, said that “Jerusalem’s fate will be settled by holy war.” Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, said in Bethlehem in 2009 that East Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine and that this is a red line that no Arab may cross. President Obama has declared that East Jerusalem must become the capital of Palestine and Jewish settlements there are illegitimate. The Arab League has said that all the territory up to the 1967 border must go a new Palestinian state. The United Nations has stated that all the territory is not Arab but Palestinian territory. Iran says that all of Palestine must be liberated. Hizbollah’s Nasrallah has declared that Palestine is part of the Islamic nation and jihad is the only way to redeem it.
All these statements are false in legal terms.
To say that the West Bank is occupied is correct. It was occupied by the British as part of their obligation as a Mandated power. It is today occupied by Israel as part of the Jewish territory *legally bestowed upon it by international law*. To understand the legal implications that have been swept under the rug we need to go back in history and review the unfolding of events.
If you go back to the maps of Jerusalem from Roman times, when the might of Rome defeated the Jewish kingdom, you will see the outline of the Old City of Jerusalem not dissimilar to today’s contours. Examining maps and lithographs throughout the ages show a remarkably similar pattern. There was virtually no construction outside the ancient walls of Jerusalem for centuries. True Jerusalem is the Old City of Jerusalem.
For those that say that there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (and this is an essential part of the Palestinian and Islamic narrative) not only defies Judeo-Christian history and heritage, it also defies concrete evidence to the contrary. One need not believe the findings of centuries of archeologists and historians to justify the claim of Jewish Jerusalem dating back to Roman times. Simply go to Rome and visit the triumphant Arch of Titus. There, carved into the stones, are scenes depicting the removal of the Jewish menorah, stolen from the Jewish Temple, being brought by Jewish slaves, defeated and exiled from their homeland, to Rome.
The Balfour Declaration was a pledge from the British Government to support the creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, given in 1917 at the time of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Those that say that the British did not have the right to give what was not theirs to give would be correct. The Balfour Declaration was not a legally binding document.
The Paris Peace Conference at the Quai d’Orsay changed this, and was the setting where all the claimants to territories held by the Ottomans could state their case before the principal Allied Powers. The Arabs were led by the Hashemite family, father and three sons. The Jewish claim was put by the Zionists led by Chaim Weitzman. Feisal met with Weitzman in Paris and they entered into an agreement. They agreed that the Jewish and Arab claims were national and not imperialist. The Arabs wanted a large contiguous Arab state. The division of land to be agreed was that the Jews would receive Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea and including what is today Jordan, and the Arabs would receive the Arab Peninsular and what is today Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. This, in effect, converted the Balfour Declaration into a binding legal document. It was no longer the whim of a British Government with no rights but now incorporated into international law by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers.
When the Mandatory administration passed into the hands of the State of Israel, the restriction of not allowing any ceding or leasing of any territory to any foreign power could be defined as including a Palestinian Authority that had no existence at the time of the enacting of this international law and, therefore, could be construed as being a new foreign power.
The second clause clearly gives legal rights for the Jews of Israel to establish settlements of all lands defined as Palestine, the national home of the Jewish people. It certainly contradicts all claims that Jewish settlement is illegal.
This, in itself, gives sufficient grounds to prove that Israel possesses exclusive sovereignty rights to the territory under international law, a law that has not been rescinded since. But there is more, much more, that strengthens Jewish legitimacy to all the territory that was known as Palestine.
The Jewish people have never renounced their rights to Jerusalem. They have never formally abandoned their rights to title and sovereignty. The Jewish people have the legal right to live and remain in every part of the territory which was part of the Mandated territory of Palestine, now Israel. They have the right to give up what is legally theirs, but they cannot be forced out. Any other claim to legal title is fraudulent and has no standing in international law that can replace the existing Jewish claim. Nations may refuse to accept Israel’s legitimate rights because of other political or vested interests but these defy Jewish justice and legitimacy. Neither is it possible to retroactively apply legal principles that remove prior standing in international law. The nations have reneged on the obligation they embraced at the 1922 League of Nations. Under the law of nations, under international law, Israel has a solid, valid, claim which ought to be honoured by the nations of the world today.
Barry Shaw: http://goo.gl/W713F1
David Phillips: http://goo.gl/oYoEGB
2) Listen to them, communication is important. When they talk to you, do they redirect their conversation towards other people - and if they do, are they saying negative things about them? If this person is telling you things about other people's private lives for the sake of having an "interesting conversation", you should take that into consideration when determining their trustworthiness. It doesn't matter if they give out their name or not; someone who talks about the business of others (with strange intentions) after they have been personally confided in is someone that you should be wary of and you should begin to question whether you can trust them or not. If they feel comfortable with talking to you about their own personal business (e.g. things that are bothering them, asking for guidance/advice etc.), it could be a sign that they somewhat trust you. Perhaps you should take a chance and trust them too.
3) Reliability, can they keep promises? Everyone lets someone down from time to time, but if someone is continuously letting you (or anyone else) down at the most important times with little-to-no excuses, then they aren't very reliable. Part of having trust in someone derives from being able to have faith in them and rely on them no matter what your situation may be.
4) Honesty. Someone who constantly lies is probably doing so as a result of trying to save themselves. Once again, intentions are another thing to consider, but someone who constantly lies about themselves in order to look good may have something to hide. If they can lie about their own life, then imagine what else they are willing to lie about. Someone who has to lie to get themselves out of a negative situation isn't trustworthy, just like someone who maliciously spreads lies about other people is spiteful.
5) Personality. Other things to consider are whether they are a self-centered person or not. Self-centered people only care about themselves and are more likely to let you down on more than one occasion than anyone else. Some people will make exceptions for the very few people that they care about, but if they constantly make themselves top priority then those people have the potential to betray you when given the chance.
Science tells us unequivocally that as soon as the first embryonic cell division takes place, we have a human life - separate and distinct from the mother. This is not a religious issue - it is one of biological scientific fact. Any biologist in the world can tell you that a mammal’s life begins when the sperm from the father unites with the egg from the mother. This fact is very inconvenient for those who want to treat embryonic and fetal human beings as property. The real argument in the abortion debate is whether or not this human being is a "person," with all the legal rights and protections of "personhood".
Those who traffic in human tissue argue that he or she is not. This is the same argument used in the Dred Scott decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States declared that black Americans, though human, are not "persons" under the law. As long as "personhood" is denied to human beings in their embryonic and fetal stages, the holocaust of abortion will continue.
You are, of course, free to believe anything that you want. But you will not convince me that there is a distinction regarding personhood between an 8 hour old fetus and a 30 week old one.
But the real problem is much bigger even than the many fallacious arguments being put forth by the progressive left. My conservative friends are mostly expressing outrage, both moral and religious, but this has little effect on the actual dynamic of what is happening in society. It certainly has no effect on the progressive liberal left.
We could have new legislation tomorrow that makes it 100% illegal for a woman to have an abortion, and yet the issue would still be far from solved. The challenge is to deal with the societal beliefs that allow and even encourage young people to have sex without worrying about the consequences, the socio-economic ills that cause so many babies to be born out of wedlock, because today the woman can easily get an abortion, paid for by Obamacare. The challenge is to educate young people to be willing to take responsibility. And the challenge is to provide a system where not only can a developing human being be safely brought to term, and the family unit be supported, but if the mother and father are unable or unwilling to keep the baby, we will have structures and programs in place that will enable that child to be adopted, to grow up in a loving and nurturing environment, and to become a productive human being.
So we can rant on with the outrage over baby killers and other abortion atrocities. We can talk about how abortion is morally wrong and reprehensible. And I'll agree. But until we start actually tackling these real issues, none of this is going to make much difference at all. If anything, it will simply make the left's eyes glaze over.
A refusal to look abroad to see what systems actually work is the major failure of Obamacare. It was rammed down our throats from behind closed doors. Ill-conceived, politically motivated, you name it.
For example: the Danish health care system is the nightmare of any anti-government free market believer: it's a tax-funded state-run universal health care system.
Denmark provides "free" health care to all residents, funded through taxes.
There is an optional private health care sector, but it is tiny compared with the vastly larger public system that is used by most of the population. Users pay for a few procedures, such as fertility treatments (from the third attempt onwards) and non-essential cosmetic surgery, as well as most of their own dental care and a portion of prescription medication.
Apothecaries are privately owned, but doctor's visits and hospitalization, including tests, treatment, follow-up care, and some medication, are fully covered.
The Danish health care system is not cheap. According to OECD's Health Data 2009, Denmark's health cost per person, public and private, was $3,512. But in the US the cost is *more than double* at $7,290! And it's increasing every year. In 2013, costs are estimated to increase by over six percent.
In addition, Danish health care covers everybody - 100 percent of the population-while in the U.S. fewer than 80 percent of citizens are covered, and often only partially. Even under Obamacare, millions will still go uninsured.
So basically the U.S. system costs more than twice as much and still leaves nearly a quarter of the population in the lurch if they need any medical care.
In fact, the U.S. could get universal coverage and still save about 1 trillion dollars per year on health care!
What makes Danish health care so cheap? It's not because it's of poorer quality. According to international surveys, more than 90 percent of Danes are totally satisfied with their health care, and it uses the most advanced methods available anywhere. And per capita there are more hospital beds and doctors than in the U.S.
It's mainly cheap because it's a lot simpler to manage. There are *no insurance companies or lawyers operating for profit*, or financial background checks. There are no uninsured, so there is no paperwork if you get sick or injured.
Some proof of identity-citizenship or residence status - is all you need. And Danes are still free to pick their own family doctors, as long as they choose one within their own geographical area, and they have a choice of hospitals and in certain cases can even opt for treatment abroad.
Of course Denmark's universal health care means a higher overall tax bill and that healthy people are paying for the treatment of sick people through their taxes. But because the system is simpler and less profit-oriented, it ends up being cheaper for everybody.
U.S. health care is the most expensive system on earth and incredibly wasteful. Of course I'm not advocating the wholesale adoption of the Danish or Scandinavian welfare system. Those countries have a radically different social model. Bur our failure to examine these systems and employ their best ideas is, at best, a total failure of leadership on the part of both the president and Congress.
Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries clearly prove that a government-run system can provide its population with superior care without being inefficient, bloated, or costly.
Stronger state regulations ensure that the money pouring through the system ends up where it's supposed to: with doctors and health care providers. There are no lobbyists. No greed lawyers.
The pharmaceutical industry still gets its fair share since medication is still bought on the free market. This rewards innovation.
In the U.S., health care financing is siphoned off by lawyers, administrators, and insurance companies; the cost of lobbying lawmakers and advertising is astronomical.
The U.S. is the only industrialized country in the world that does not support universal health care for its citizens. A greater degree of government involvement in health care might be un-American, but when the American system has abjectly failed, a refusal to look abroad for better models is simply self-defeating.
This is why Obamacare will NEVER WORK, and must be repealed so that we can start over and do it right. And it starts with controlling unit costs.
So right now the Senate (and the House, which voted to approve) doesn't increase the dollar amount of the debt limit - all it does is suspend enforcement of it until February 7th, when the limits are supposed to go back into place and will have to be raised. What that does in the meantime is give Obama and the Democrats a blank check to accumulate as much new debt as they want until then.
Essentially what has happened is our lawmakers have gotten away with allowing the country to rack up more debt and avoid the threat of default without actually voting for debt limit increase.
We're in to 17 trillions of dollars in debt; what I'd like to know is, what are we going to do when we're in the hundreds of trillions of dollars? What's the number after that? What happens when we are so far into debt that we can't possibly repay in hundreds of years? Because at the rate we're going, our grandkids will be right in the middle of it. Have these spineless turds in Washington even thought about that? Do you think they even care?