If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Robert Reich gets an F-minus for his latest wage theory, and he's a doodyhead. Bonus use of the phrase "clap track"   (forbes.com) divider line 102
    More: Fail, Robert Reich, resource allocation, labor secretary, Ford Motor Company, minimum wages, Model T, phrases, minimum wage law  
•       •       •

2279 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 Sep 2013 at 9:04 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-10 05:23:37 PM
Good thing he backed up all of his assertions with facts like the guy he disagrees with did, instead of just screaming "I disagree" a bunch of times. otherwise he'd just look like an idiot.
 
2013-09-10 05:39:33 PM
Costco vs. Walmart Theory.
 
2013-09-10 05:40:15 PM
 
2013-09-10 05:53:00 PM

Dinki: Reich biatch slaps him back


Thank you.
 
2013-09-10 06:01:11 PM

Dinki: Reich biatch slaps him back


nice.
 
2013-09-10 06:36:58 PM
You co-authored a best-selling economics text book in the eighties.

Did you decide to leave the cover grey?
 
2013-09-10 09:12:54 PM

RoyBatty: Costco vs. Walmart Theory.


Exactly. Why isn't Costco out of business again?  What about Whole Foods? Why are they not out of business?What about QuikTrip? What about Trader Joe's?

Why are the richest americans getting pay increases of 10% or more every year while wages are stagnant at the lowest levels. And why are the vast majority of the super rich sitting on their cash and not reinvesting it?

F*ck this guy. As Reich said he's stooped to a bunch of ad hominem attacks, presumably so he can suck at the cock of Forbes Magazine and whore himself out for his next right wing libertarian bestseller.
 
2013-09-10 09:15:09 PM
lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-09-10 09:18:14 PM

Dinki: Reich biatch slaps him back


Reich: "I seriously doubt Gregory wants us to go back to an era of urban squalor, robber barons, corrupt city machines, unsafe factories, and poisonous food and drugs. "

Ummm, yes, Gregory does.
 
2013-09-10 09:19:48 PM

jaytkay: [lh5.googleusercontent.com image 640x480]


well played, sir.
 
2013-09-10 09:21:21 PM
As any self-respecting Forbes' capitalist tool knows

That sounds kind of snippy. I like it.
 
2013-09-10 09:29:02 PM
I didn't get a harumph out of that guy!
 
2013-09-10 09:32:41 PM
Steve Reich hasn't been the same since Robert split up the band.
 
2013-09-10 09:34:40 PM
Your first mistake was reading Forbes.
 
2013-09-10 09:36:36 PM
Wow. Great link. The guy sounds a bit frothy and over the top, so take it with a small grain of salt. He could be as far right wing as reich is left.

But he's absolutely right to crush Reich. Reich not only gets economics wrong, he blatantly lies. And he fools many many economically clueless idiots. Of you do nothing else to further your understanding of economics, do yourself this favor:ignore Robert reich.

Love the take down of the Henry Ford point. The idea that Henry ford paid his workers more so they could afford his product is one of the more laughable left wing myths. Utterly nonsensical.
 
2013-09-10 09:45:13 PM
This guy claims Ford and others raised wages because of increased labor productivity.  Yeah, I doubt it.  The current era is proof positive that doesn't make sense - we're at a time of ever increasing worker productivity, and have been for ages, yet wages have been stagnant for a very long time.

Problem with economics is dingbats/partisans like this guy and Greg Mankiw have widely read textbooks out there.
 
2013-09-10 09:45:56 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: But he's absolutely right to crush Reich. Reich not only gets economics wrong, he blatantly lies. And he fools many many economically clueless idiots. Of you do nothing else to further your understanding of economics, do yourself this favor:ignore Robert reich.


Your argument is just as reasoned and well-thought out as the author's.
 
2013-09-10 09:52:29 PM

Mentat: Debeo Summa Credo: But he's absolutely right to crush Reich. Reich not only gets economics wrong, he blatantly lies. And he fools many many economically clueless idiots. Of you do nothing else to further your understanding of economics, do yourself this favor:ignore Robert reich.

Your argument is just as reasoned and well-thought out as the author's.


But better than any argument Robert Reich has made!

Seriously, you are doing yourself a disservice getting your economics knowledge from people like Robert Reich. He is a partisan labor shill and that colors everything he writes. You are allowing yourself to be misled due to your partisan zeal.
 
2013-09-10 09:56:31 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Love the take down of the Henry Ford point. The idea that Henry ford paid his workers more so they could afford his product is one of the more laughable left wing myths. Utterly nonsensical.


Except that's this editorial doesn't really address that claim, it simply dismisses it as an urban legend and then immediately takes a sharp turn into DERPistan by arguing against a strawman instead of the actual claim.
 
2013-09-10 10:03:47 PM
So according to this guy, the average hard working individual shouldn't never be paid well??

That plutocracy is the only way to have a great society.

Might as well just pull the trigger right now.

\This dude got OWNED by that dude on his blog, too bad he will never read it as he might have learned a couple things about 'Murica!
 
2013-09-10 10:05:44 PM
OK so lets cover the basics.  People buy things.

Simple huh?

When they have less disposable income they buy LESS things.

Still simple right?

So...Rich people dont buy a lot of things, they tend to own things, and make capital work for them...but not by buying things.

As inequality grows the poor people stop buying stuff....and then the rich people cant sell stuff, people become unemployed, as they become unemployed they buy even LESS things.

As that occurs the economy goes to hell.

Still with me?

OK now...if poor people have MORE money...they..GASP buy more things.

This is a market driven economy.  As inequality rises the economy will falter.  One way of resolving this is to increase the minimum wage.  There ARE alternatives, for example, a guaranteed minimum income would resolve it.  But the most basic is to raise the minimum wage.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?  Especially someone who does this for a living?  (note i am not a economics major, I studied computer science primarily-yes a few economics classes too).

The only reasonable explanations are that they either took some REALLY messed up drugs....or they're lying on purpose.  My guess is...they're lying on purpose for financial reasons.
 
2013-09-10 10:07:16 PM
Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.
 
2013-09-10 10:07:58 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Seriously, you are doing yourself a disservice getting your economics knowledge from people like Robert Reich. He is a partisan labor shill and that colors everything he writes. You are allowing yourself to be misled due to your partisan zeal.


And the author isn't a partisan shill who allows himself to be misled due to his partisan zeal?
 
2013-09-10 10:08:34 PM

MrEricSir: Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.


He wrote an economics book in the 1980's.
 
2013-09-10 10:11:01 PM

Mentat: MrEricSir: Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.

He wrote an economics book in the 1980's.


I got laid a lot in the 1980s.

/ I miss those days
 
2013-09-10 10:12:26 PM

MrEricSir: Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.


My faith in "Economists" died around 2008-2009.
 
2013-09-10 10:14:30 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Wow. Great link. The guy sounds a bit frothy and over the top, so take it with a small grain of salt. He could be as far right wing as reich is left.


Is it just me, or has DSC really been phoning it in lately?
 
2013-09-10 10:21:10 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: Wow. Great link. The guy sounds a bit frothy and over the top, so take it with a small grain of salt. He could be as far right wing as reich is left.

Is it just me, or has DSC really been phoning it in lately?


I don't think so. As far as I can remember his posts have always been very ignorant.
 
2013-09-10 10:23:43 PM

Mentat: MrEricSir: Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.

He wrote an economics book in the 1980's.


And Aristotle wrote a science book before the common era. Just because something is older doesn't make it more correct.
 
2013-09-10 10:34:31 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: MrEricSir: Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.

My faith in "Economists" died around 2008-2009.


Oblig:

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-09-10 10:35:16 PM

max_pooper: I don't think so. As far as I can remember his posts have always been very ignorant.


Oh, no doubt about that. Just seems like this is the third or fourth time in as many business threads he's shown his face to say little more than "I agree with this typical right-wing diatribe. Suck it, libs." The passion just isn't there.
You notice these kinds of things when half of your family spouts the same Tea Party bullshiat at you all the time.
 
2013-09-10 10:37:05 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Mentat: MrEricSir: Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.

He wrote an economics book in the 1980's.

And Aristotle wrote a science book before the common era. Just because something is older doesn't make it more correct.


I don't think you understand.  He wrote an economics textbook.  In the 80's.
 
2013-09-10 10:42:44 PM

Mentat: I don't think you understand. He wrote an economics textbook. In the 80's.


www.josesandoval.com
 
2013-09-10 10:47:12 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Mentat: I don't think you understand. He wrote an economics textbook. In the 80's.

[www.josesandoval.com image 224x229]


Gutsy question. You're a shark. Sharks are winners and they don't look back 'cause they don't have necks. Necks are for sheep.
 
2013-09-10 10:51:30 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: max_pooper: I don't think so. As far as I can remember his posts have always been very ignorant.

Oh, no doubt about that. Just seems like this is the third or fourth time in as many business threads he's shown his face to say little more than "I agree with this typical right-wing diatribe. Suck it, libs." The passion just isn't there.
You notice these kinds of things when half of your family spouts the same Tea Party bullshiat at you all the time.


I guess I'm lucky to come from a family without any stupid people.
 
2013-09-10 10:57:06 PM

Mentat: Debeo Summa Credo: Seriously, you are doing yourself a disservice getting your economics knowledge from people like Robert Reich. He is a partisan labor shill and that colors everything he writes. You are allowing yourself to be misled due to your partisan zeal.

And the author isn't a partisan shill who allows himself to be misled due to his partisan zeal?


I caveats my original post that the author of TFA "might be as right wing as Reich is left", and to take his commentary "with a small grain of salt". Certainly wouldn't recommend getting all your economics from this guy.

Biased though he may be, it doesn't take much to tear down Reich.
 
2013-09-10 11:02:12 PM

Greywar: OK so lets cover the basics.  People buy things.

Simple huh?

When they have less disposable income they buy LESS things.

Still simple right?

So...Rich people dont buy a lot of things, they tend to own things, and make capital work for them...but not by buying things.

As inequality grows the poor people stop buying stuff....and then the rich people cant sell stuff, people become unemployed, as they become unemployed they buy even LESS things.

As that occurs the economy goes to hell.

Still with me?

OK now...if poor people have MORE money...they..GASP buy more things.

This is a market driven economy.  As inequality rises the economy will falter.  One way of resolving this is to increase the minimum wage.  There ARE alternatives, for example, a guaranteed minimum income would resolve it.  But the most basic is to raise the minimum wage.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?  Especially someone who does this for a living?  (note i am not a economics major, I studied computer science primarily-yes a few economics classes too).

The only reasonable explanations are that they either took some REALLY messed up drugs....or they're lying on purpose.  My guess is...they're lying on purpose for financial reasons.


Gee, you'd think that all the people that own companies would see your irrefutable logic and call for minimum wage hikes/minimum income, if they would improve the economy and therefore the profitability and value of their companies. You know, for "financial reasons".

But they don't. Must be all the drugs they take. Maybe you could give them some of yours, since you know better.
 
2013-09-10 11:04:33 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: I caveats my original post that the author of TFA "might be as right wing as Reich is left"


Cuz there's exactly two positions and the best choice is always precisely in the middle.

Thanks!
 
2013-09-10 11:06:18 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Greywar: OK so lets cover the basics.  People buy things.

Gee, you'd think that all the people that own companies would see your irrefutable logic and call for minimum wage hikes/minimum income, if they would improve the economy and therefore the profitability and value of their companies. You know, for "financial reasons".

But they don't. Must be all the drugs they take. Maybe you could give them some of yours, since you know better.


Sigh.

No its because while as a group doing this is a much better thing for all of us, individually its more beneficial for you to do the opposite....on a individual level.  but when everyone does it you're kinda hosed.  But despite that...its hard to go the other way because then your competitors are more competitive.....

Im sad I even had to explain this.
 
2013-09-10 11:08:54 PM
And let em be more specific....Those truly intelligent, better then us people?  I've met a lot of them.  They're not the brightest.  They tend to follow the herd.  Seriously.  They are generally VERY VERY sociable often very good with people, or delivering messages.  And they tend to hire people just like them.

Watched one go from being a Intel VP to running a smaller business....and it was a horrific trainwreck.
 
2013-09-10 11:14:06 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Greywar: OK so lets cover the basics.  People buy things.

Simple huh?

When they have less disposable income they buy LESS things.

Still simple right?

So...Rich people dont buy a lot of things, they tend to own things, and make capital work for them...but not by buying things.

As inequality grows the poor people stop buying stuff....and then the rich people cant sell stuff, people become unemployed, as they become unemployed they buy even LESS things.

As that occurs the economy goes to hell.

Still with me?

OK now...if poor people have MORE money...they..GASP buy more things.

This is a market driven economy.  As inequality rises the economy will falter.  One way of resolving this is to increase the minimum wage.  There ARE alternatives, for example, a guaranteed minimum income would resolve it.  But the most basic is to raise the minimum wage.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?  Especially someone who does this for a living?  (note i am not a economics major, I studied computer science primarily-yes a few economics classes too).

The only reasonable explanations are that they either took some REALLY messed up drugs....or they're lying on purpose.  My guess is...they're lying on purpose for financial reasons.

Gee, you'd think that all the people that own companies would see your irrefutable logic and call for minimum wage hikes/minimum income, if they would improve the economy and therefore the profitability and value of their companies. You know, for "financial reasons".

But they don't. Must be all the drugs they take. Maybe you could give them some of yours, since you know better.


Tragedy of the Commons?
 
2013-09-10 11:17:17 PM
God, this article is full of dumb "facts". Like this one:

Ford's $5 wage to convert his workers into Model T customers is an urban legend that thinking economist dismiss as nonsense. Henry Ford's employees would have had to buy forty cars each to absorb the half million Model T's rolling off his assembly line in 1916. Ford could sell his Model T's only if wages were rising generally throughout the economy, not just in his own factories.

First of all, the reason he did it was to reduce turnover. Secondly, his higher wages attracted the best automechanics in the industry and it was only when he had the best of the best that production turnaround took off. But most importantly, every competitor and factory in Detroit had to increase their wages also to keep personnel from jumping ship to Ford. Ford had created a wages arms race that resulted in an entire city having the most affluent working class in the country. The whole city could afford Model T cars -- Ford even referred to it as profit sharing rather than wages: People were giving their wages back in exchange for the cars they helped build.

I've ranted a lot on here about fiscal liquidity and the money cycle, how it has to keep moving through the classes and everyone prospers, and there is no purer example of how it works than Detroit in the first half of the 20th century.

We seriously need to do that again.
 
2013-09-10 11:20:43 PM

jaytkay: Reich: "I seriously doubt Gregory wants us to go back to an era of urban squalor, robber barons, corrupt city machines, unsafe factories, and poisonous food and drugs. "


Evidently a respected psuedo-economist is not above abusing strawmen.
 
2013-09-10 11:21:26 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Gee, you'd think that all the people that own companies would see your irrefutable logic and call for minimum wage hikes/minimum income, if they would improve the economy and therefore the profitability and value of their companies.


It might negatively affect stock prices and take longer than a quarter to have positive effect. Shareholders, who demand exponential growth and absolve themselves of all responsibility, would never stand for it. They don't want a safe investment, they want a jackpot after which they don't have to care anymore.
 
2013-09-10 11:25:50 PM

Mentat: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Mentat: MrEricSir: Actually, I think my favorite part about this editorial is that he spends what feels like the first 20 pages arguing that only people with the right credentials are worth listening to, but never bothers to explain his own credentials regarding his knowledge of the history of Ford.

It's like he almost intended to write an essay about why his opinion is worthless.

He wrote an economics book in the 1980's.

And Aristotle wrote a science book before the common era. Just because something is older doesn't make it more correct.

I don't think you understand.  He wrote an economics textbook.  In the 80's.


Ah. Well, I see my sarcasm meter needs recalibration and/or I shouldn't drink on work nights. I'll probably get a new meter, it's easier.
 
2013-09-10 11:31:20 PM
Reich's resume raises one red flag: He is not an economist but a lawyer - a Yale Law School classmate of Hillary Clinton, who studied a smattering of economics for his PPE (politics, philosophy, and economics) degree at Oxford - a Rhodes Scholar no less.

Looks like someone discovered Wikipedia...
 
2013-09-10 11:42:37 PM
As someone who actually holds an economics degree, let me say this:  They call it the "dismal science" for a reason, and only half of that moniker really describes economics.
 
2013-09-10 11:49:24 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Mentat: Debeo Summa Credo: Seriously, you are doing yourself a disservice getting your economics knowledge from people like Robert Reich. He is a partisan labor shill and that colors everything he writes. You are allowing yourself to be misled due to your partisan zeal.

And the author isn't a partisan shill who allows himself to be misled due to his partisan zeal?

I caveats my original post that the author of TFA "might be as right wing as Reich is left", and to take his commentary "with a small grain of salt". Certainly wouldn't recommend getting all your economics from this guy.

Biased though he may be, it doesn't take much to tear down Reich.


So you want to take his commentary with a grain of salt while insisting that his commentary dismantled Reich's arguments?
 
2013-09-10 11:51:07 PM

max_pooper: Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: Wow. Great link. The guy sounds a bit frothy and over the top, so take it with a small grain of salt. He could be as far right wing as reich is left.

Is it just me, or has DSC really been phoning it in lately?

I don't think so. As far as I can remember his posts have always been very ignorant.


Which is weird, because Debeo Summa Credo claims to have MBA, CPA and CFA designations.  With those credentials, you'd think he'd be a Fortune 500 CFO, or a hedge fund manager, or at least make fewer errors in Fark threads.
 
2013-09-10 11:59:20 PM

El Pachuco: Which is weird, because Debeo Summa Credo claims to have MBA, CPA and CFA designations. With those credentials, you'd think he'd be a Fortune 500 CFO, or a hedge fund manager, or at least make fewer errors in Fark threads.


Didn't you know? He and Matt Stafford were roomies in college.
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report