Carpe Diem

Who’d a-thunk it? America’s protectionist policies send production and jobs overseas and damage the US economy

sugarAmerica’s long-standing protectionist farm policies protect inefficient domestic sugar beet growers from more efficient foreign competition, which have driven up average wholesale sugar prices in the US to twice the world price: 29 cents per pound on average in the US vs. 14.6 cents in the world market since 1982 (see chart above, data here). And as a result, US manufacturers of products with high sugar content have increasingly moved their production overseas to avoid America’s artificially high sugar prices and take advantage of the lower world price for their main input.

Predictably, our protectionist trade and agricultural policies reap generous benefits on one very small special interest group – US sugar beet farmers – but that comes at a dear price – the loss of thousands of US jobs in sugar-using industries, higher sugar prices for hundreds of millions of Americans, and the loss of thousands of jobs in unseen industries that would have prospered if consumers hadn’t spent so much of their income on artificially high prices for sugar-containing products.

For example, an article on the front page of the WSJ today reports that “Cheaper Sugar Sends Candy Makers Abroad“:

Despite a prolonged slide in domestic sugar prices, U.S. candy makers are expanding production in other countries as federal price supports and a global glut of the sweet stuff give an ever-greater advantage to foreign rivals. A 50% drop in U.S. sugar prices in the last two years hasn’t been enough to eliminate problems from a longtime price gap between domestic and foreign sugar. On Friday, the U.S. sugar contract in the futures market settled at 22.28 cents a pound, or 14% higher than the benchmark global price.

U.S. prices can’t fall much lower because of a federal government program that guarantees sugar processors a minimum price. The rest of the world also has a surfeit of sugar, but fewer price restrictions, and big growers like Brazil are expecting a record crop for the current season.

The squeeze explains why Atkinson Candy Co. has moved 80% of its peppermint candy production to a factory in Guatemala that opened in 2010. That means it can sell bite-size Mint Twists to retailers for 10% to 20% less. “It wasn’t like we did it for profit reasons. We did it for survival reasons,” said Eric Atkinson, president of the family-owned candy maker, based in Lufkin, Texas. “These are 60 jobs down there…that could be in the U.S.,” he added. “It’s a damn shame.”

MP: This example also helps illustrate a point made by Don Boudreaux recently about the minimum wage law unfair government practice of forcing many unskilled and low-skilled workers to remain unemployed, as I reported on CD, and summarize again here using the sugar example above.

Most people, even proponents of the minimum wage unfair government practice of forcing many unskilled and low-skilled workers to remain unemployed, readily understand that profit-seeking American firms producing candy and other products with high sugar content, whose main cost of production is sugar, will seek to minimize their cost of production, which frequently involves moving or outsourcing the production of candy to other countries where sugar costs are lower than in America. But then some of those same people suddenly suffer from “economic amnesia” and assume those same profit-seeking firms become suddenly completely indifferent to the costs of labor in America, and make no adjustments when faced with an increase in the minimum wage unfair government practice of forcing many unskilled and low-skilled workers to remain unemployed?

139 thoughts on “Who’d a-thunk it? America’s protectionist policies send production and jobs overseas and damage the US economy

  1. “[W]ill seek to minimize their cost of production, which frequently involves moving or outsourcing the production of candy to other countries where sugar costs are lower than in America.”

    Yes, indeed. Or seek cheaper alternatives (such as HFCS).

  2. So, “economic amnesia” means the vast majority of economists forgot the only real force in economics is supply and demand.

    All the other forces, i.e. vectors in n-space, that interrelate and interact in the economy, are so weak, they should be completely ignored.

    • That you don’t think supply and demand are determined by n-space, but wholly independent of n-space is the problem. The other collective amnesia for many economists is mistaking their models for reality (mistaking causation), rather than recognizing that their models are at best estimations of reality. A perfect example is thinking that aggregate statistics cause microeconomic action, when in reality microeconomic action causes aggregate statistics. This is the primary reason keynesians are so often wrong.

  3. There are so many mechanisms that are ignored, I don’t know where to start.

    Raising the U.S. minimum wage will cause some offshoring. However, those goods will be imported at low prices, particularly compared to the higher wages, from the higher minimum wage, paid at jobs that can’t be offshored.

    Moreover, any freed-up labor from the higher minimum wage will be available to expand the U.S. economy (there are much more powerful factors that create jobs than raising or lowering the minimum wage).

    Unlike the price of sugar, raising the minimum wage will lower other production costs and raise productivity. Here’s a real example:

    There was a fast growing firm that was also very disorganized, because it was so busy. One of the recommendations was raising the starting wage from $11 to $13 an hour for all factory workers. However, management decided that was a bad idea. One reason was there were always plenty of applicants for $11 an hour, over the prior five year period, and of course, there was concern profits would fall, substantially.

    However, roughly six months later, management raised the starting wage to $13 an hour and something miraculous happened.

    Turnover rates dropped like a rock, overtime was almost completely eliminated, including six day weeks, injuries fell dramatically, hardly anyone called in sick, damage to equipment and products almost disappeared, including steep declines in reject rates, quality rocketed, morale was lifted, management no longer had to spend enormous time interviewing workers, with related paperwork and training, supervisors no longer had to cover for sick workers, to do their jobs, and had time to actually do their work, and of course, profits soared.

    Experienced workers who rejected the job when they learned it was $1 or $2 less than they were willing to work for took the jobs at the higher rate. Management had much more time to manage and supervisors had much more time to supervise. So, operations became much more organized and efficient.

    • That was in response to Peak Trader saying:

      “So, “economic amnesia” means the vast majority of economists forgot the only real force in economics is supply and demand.”

      I formatted that wrong. My fault.

    • Sure, economists can’t be taken seriously, unless they only believe in supply and demand, and based on your prior ignorance you believe sugar is labor too.

      • Well, that brings up another question.

        If we hold all variables constant, do you believe that a hike in minimum wage, it will either rise unemployment, or cause employers to search for cheaper methods, therefore preventing future hiring?

        • I stated before:

          A rise in the minimum wage can increase real economic growth.

          The higher wage attracts better workers, with higher reservation wages, to increase productivity.

          Minimum wage workers have high marginal propensities to consume. So, a higher minimum wage increases consumption.

          Only a portion of the higher minimum wage may be passed along in higher prices, because portions will be absorbed by “excess” wages of other workers (or overpaid workers) and “excess” profits (capital as a share of GDP is at an all-time high, while real wages declined).

          Weak or poorly managed firms will lose business or fail. However, stronger or better managed firms will gain their business, and also gain from the increased demand.

          The (positive) income and multiplier effects may be stronger than the (negative) employment effect, up to $15 an hour.

          • A rise in the minimum wage can increase real economic growth“…

            You would be wrong on this particular situation…

            All minimum wage rates drive more of the low skilled/no skilled workforce out onto the streets looking for work that is no longer there for them…

            Card-Kruege fairy tales aside how much should the so called minimum wage be raised?

            10%? 15%? Double it?

            If a higher minimum wage is good then an even higher mimimum wage should be ‘more good‘, right?

          • It may attract better workers bit then you dump the poorer ones whocworent working as well. You do this frequently – prove your opponents case while trying to build your own.

          • The problem with your assumption is it’s not supported by the data. When the real minimum wage was at its peak, the unemployment rate was 3.5%.

            Now, the real minimum wage is over 25% lower, while per capita real income has doubled.

            Since the real minimum wage has declined, the low-wage unemployment rate has been higher, while the low-wage labor force participation rate has been in steep decline.

          • marque2, you’re delusional. You and my “opponents” have always supported my statements by trying to oppose them.

          • marque2, also, I may add, if you understood how economic variables interrelate (in mathematical models) and interact (in empirical models), you’d realize your statements have the opposite effect of what you intended.

            You’ve shown this tendency often, i.e. believing in the opposite of what’s true.

          • You make statements supporting every point of view. It is actually pretty funny.

            And your statement that when minimum wage was “higher” there was less unemployment is also stupid as hell.

            Why do you think the real minimum wage rate is going down – as wages in general are going down – because we have a soft economy. In fact if it weren’t for government interference, we would be close to what is considered 100% employment today – folks would just earning less.

          • Interesting – but you were talking about money not being used, not people, so you are kind of changing the subject.

            There shouldn’t be much labor capital being idle either. The reason we have idle labor is government puts in place policies which prevent labor prices from dropping in reaction to lower demand for labor.

            If salaries dropped companies would hire back pretty quickly again until there was always full employment, this is in you Econ 101 books as well. Some impediments, Minimum wage, Unemployment insurance, Union contracts, fair wage laws, living wage laws, anti discrimination laws, etc.

            Too some extent I am currently employed because I am able to lower my wages. I dropped them 10% from last year.

        • So, yes, you do think that, all else held equal, that a hike in minimum wage will cause negative effects?

          But you think the positive effects from those who are able to increase their wages will offset the negative effects?

          • I’m just really really confused because you’ve changed your story 4 times in the 3 conversations I’ve had with you.

            First you said that minimum wage has no negative effects because prices aren’t wages.

            Then you said that minimum wage has negative effects, but the positive effects are outweighed.

            Then you said that “the vast majority of economists” believe minimum wage has no effect.

            Now your back to saying it has an effect, but the positives outweigh the negatives.

            It’s just super hard to follow your argument when you lie (eg, say 32% constitute a vast majority), keep changing your story, insist everyone who disagrees with you are idiots and going against “orthodox economics,” and you keep changing definitions to suit your story.

            Ya know, far be it from me to call you ignorant of something you think you know about, but as long as I have been here, I have seen Mark Perry post evidence (anecdotal, theoretical, and empirical) showing the negative effects of minimum wage and I have seen you (and only you) lie about your evidence (“vast majority”), insult everyone who disagrees with you, refuse to rebut anything, make nebulous claims like “every labor economist I’ve spoken to…” or “everyone I talk to…” and use only one (obviously biased) website to support you (which I’ve seen picked apart bit by bit).

            You may very well be in the right. But your attitude says you are not. And trust me, as a military man, appearance is everything. And right now, you give the appearance of a fool.

          • Yes, and I’d like to see median income and low-wage labor force participation rates begin to rise again.

          • Jack, you’re not confused at all. You’re playing the same cute little game you played before, spreading misinformation trying to find new fools. Good luck. LOL

      • That you think believing in supply and demand means only believing in supply and demand is quite stupid. Not believing in supply and demand determines prices, the very thing Vernon Smith got his Nobel prize for proving, when talking about economics is as fruitful as talking about physics while denying the existence or usefulness of gravity.

    • Supply and demand aren’t the only real forces in economics. The labor economics literature supports my statements. Here are some ideas by economists:

      Minimum Wage

      “The argument that minimum wages decrease employment is based on a simple supply and demand model of the labor market. A number of economists (for example Pierangelo Garegnani, Robert L. Vienneau, and Arrigo Opocher & Ian Steedman), building on the work of Piero Sraffa, argue that that model, even given all its assumptions, is logically incoherent.

      Michael Anyadike-Danes and Wyne Godley argue, based on simulation results, that little of the empirical work done with the textbook model constitutes a potentially falsifying test, and, consequently, empirical evidence hardly exists for that model.

      Graham White argues, partially on the basis of Sraffianism, that the policy of increased labor market flexibility, including the reduction of minimum wages, does not have an “intellectually coherent” argument in economic theory.

      Gary Fields…argues that the standard “textbook model” for the minimum wage is “ambiguous”, and that the standard theoretical arguments incorrectly measure only a one-sector market.

      An alternate view of the labor market has low-wage labor markets characterized as monopsonistic competition wherein buyers (employers) have significantly more market power than do sellers (workers)…Such a case is a type of market failure and results in workers being paid less than their marginal value.

      Under the monopsonistic assumption, an appropriately set minimum wage could increase both wages and employment, with the optimal level being equal to the marginal productivity of labor.”

      • You sure post a lot. If your information is incorrect, it doesn’t become “more correcter” if you post it 100 times.

        I do find it funny how you argue youself into circles trying to support socialist economic dogma. But most who do, do the same thing. Paul Krugman’s NYT articles are hillarious for the same reason – especially when you compare what he wrote in his econ 101/102(Macro and Micro enonomics) textbook.

        • And, if I say a higher minimum wage will reduce employment and the positive income effect will increase employment, resulting in a net increase in employment, you’d say that’s a contradiction too.

          Talking to you about economics is like trying to explain the world is round, while you keep saying the world is flat.

  4. Are the jobs going overseas because of tariffs on sugar or because of the lack tariffs on imported candy?

    Us sugar prices were higher than the world price when the candy makers first started business. The difference today is that we removed tariffs on candy makers making the outsourcing possible. The jobs could be keep here by reinstating tariffs on candy imports.

  5. I have a question, related to sugar tariffs but not related to minimum wage.

    Obviously, taxes have a distortionary effect on the economy. However, taxes are necessary if you are to have a government. Therefore, taxes should be as best as possible (meaning they should create the least distortionary effect).

    Consumption taxes tend to have the least effect, because they are in the control of the consumer and do not punish productivity, as measured by income and investment.

    Would it be better to have a government financed by consumption taxes (maybe tariffs, a national sales tax, or VAT), in lieu of an income tax?

    • It should be noted, the U.S. is a consumer-driven economy, not an export-led economy, like Germany, China, and Japan.

      Higher gasoline prices in the U.S. is like a consumption tax, and higher gasoline prices means less money to buy other goods.

    • Jon Murphy: ” However, taxes are necessary if you are to have a government.”

      I do not believe this nation needs a very large government, but apparently the majority of the electorate do not agree with me.

      Let’s assume that we are going to fund a federal government to do all of those tasks which could be done more efficiently by private enterprise and by local government. If we must do so, then we should try to fund as many as we can through user fees. Highway users should be charged for highway use (which they are). FDA should be funded by fees assessed to food and drug producers. Air transport companies and their customers should be assessed fees to fund air traffic control and TSA (which they are).

      The problem with general taxation is that the bill for government services never gets to the customer. If each household and business in the U.S. were assessed a specific fee to pay for “national defense”, I think defense funding would shrink. If every mass transit passenger were assessed fees to cover the full cost of his transport, mass transit funding would dry up pretty quickly.

      Medicare and Social Security are, in a sense, being funded by user fees. Those who pay medicare and social security taxes today will receive benefits tomorrow. Because of generational size differences, of course, per capita benefit levels must shrink in the future.

      User fees will not be implemented for all parts of government, of course. That’s because liberals continue to believe that the more productive should pay for the free riders.

      • john-

        i completely agree about user fees.

        user based payment is how you keep from undertaking negative value projects.

        i would not classify medicare and SS as user fees though.

        medicaid, in particular, is a wealth transfer. those getting it have rarely paid in much and those who pay in most never use it at all.

        medicare part b has some “user fees” but they are far too low to cover costs and likely amount to a 66-75% subsidy. it’s also a benefit that will get less and less valuable. by the time my turn to “use” it comes, i suspect we will have split into a 2 tier system like the nhs in the uk and few doctors will accept medicare and the services will be low quality and the lines long. the point of user fees is to align costs and consumption to rationalize demand. medicare fails badly on that score.

        SS is an inter-generational and inter class wealth transfer.

        the returns to my SS payments are negative in nominal terms unless i live to be 104 (and that’s assuming benefits don’t drop, a highly unrealistic assumption). the difference between that and the return i get on my own savings is so massive as to be preposterous. it’s not a user fee, it’s forced confiscation. you can opt out of user fees by not using somehting. SS has no such provision.

        doubtless, there are some who will get more out of SS than they pay in, but for many more, it’s a negative return.

        user fees are the same for all users and are opt in. i do not see how ss or medaid fit the bill.

        • Just to note that once upon a time the premiums for medicare part B were set at 50% of the cost level. (This was before means testing). Now they are about 25%, with means testing as well. One Idea I have for this is to start raising the percent of part b paid say 5% for those entering medicare in year x and 5% more for those entering in year x+1 etc. Start it in say 5 years and folks could adapt, and we would eventually return the paid level to that originally set.

      • I agree, John. User fees would be the way to go.

        Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that everything that can be paid for by user fees are paid for by user fees (and paid for completely. No subsidizing).

        The way I see it, that would only leave two things unfunded: national defense and Congressional salaries.

        Could we fund these through some kind of consumption tax?

        • Jon

          The way I see it, that would only leave two things unfunded: national defense and Congressional salaries.

          In my view, Congressional salaries should be one of the first to be converted to a user pays system. Currently I help pay the salaries of people who work tirelessly in direct opposition to my interests. A fee based system, like the one used by private attorneys would ensure that those who benefit from Congressional action would bear the entire cost.

          This might might not be much of a change from the current system, but at least those who didn’t want their representatives doing thing for them, wouldn’t be charged for the screwing they got from other people’s representatives.

          What do you think?

          • Jon

            With tongue-in-cheek I’m saying that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay Congressmen to continually produce legislation that isn’t in their best interest, and that costs them ever more money.

            A user pays system would require that the cronies and interest groups that benefit from any particular law or regulation, or who receive taxpayer funding, should be required to pay some sort of a commission or stipend to the legislators that provided the favor or funding for them.

            Pretty much like it is now, only more transparent. No need for a government paid salary.

      • The existence of much of government is dependent on deception. Medicare would never have been approved if government had been honest about the true costs (10x what was claimed in 1965). Social Security would never have been approved if people had known that their “trust account” would be invaded and spent by government. Obamacare would never have gotten all the Democrat votes it did if they had had to read and understand the bill before passing it. What government relies on is that the deceptions will come to light after it is too late to do anything about it.

        • Sam,

          Medicare would never have been approved if government had been honest about the true costs (10x what was claimed in 1965).

          Yep, the Democrats lied their asses off:

          “We have some wonderful telephone tapes in which Johnson described to a newly elected Ted Kennedy how to get Medicare passed,” Marone said. “He said, ‘Don’t let ‘em cost it out. Don’t let ‘em project the costs down the line. It’ll kill you.’ He thought that if people knew the full costs of Medicare it would never have passed, and he kept trying to lowball the estimates. And this was before the Office of Management and Budget. But we believe – we say in the book – that if we knew the costs, Medicare, one of the two most popular programs in America never would have passed.”

      • John Dewey, if the goal of a user tax or consumption tax is to reduce the size of government through consumption, then output = GDP = income will fall.

        See the consumption function Y = C + I + G + NX. Both C and G will fall, which will lower Y. Of course, an increase in NX can compensate for the decreases in C + G, if you don’t mind working for foreigners.

        On the production side, high income workers are already productive whether their income is $200,000 or $150,000. Of course, lower income workers may shirk or find ways to raise their income to compensate, e.g. working slower to earn more overtime.

        The regressive tax where everyone pays the same tax rate for a gallon of gasoline, for example, may cause low income workers to take the bus and high income workers to buy gas guzzlers. Al Gore may go for that, because many older cars will be taken off the road.

        And, what would the user or consumption tax rate be to fund government – 25% or more?

        • It is estimated to be 30% though proponents invert that and claim 23%.

          Though it would probably be possible to do it for less, because our tax rate is suboptimally high right now – you could actually still increase revenue by dropping taxes.

    • Hi John,

      There actually aren’t any sugar tarrifs. The program is a price support program. They restrict imports to 40% of our total sugar needs, and let countries that traditionally exported export to us – if Germany wanted to start exporting sugar to us, no dice.

      In addition they have strict acreage growing quotas in the United states, based on state per state acrage in the previous year. If your state didn’t do any sugar production in the previous year, tough beans. Note if you as a farmer try to grow sugar beats anyway, they would not be saleable as a sugar product, you might be allowed to sell them for animal feed.

      Something to note – even with the price support, places like Hawaii, which was once by far the number one sugar producer in the USA, are still having issues. I think Hawaii sugar production is 1/4 its peak and they don’t produce as much as Florida any more. My Hawaii facts may be off by a bit (due to recollection errors) but simple google fu will find you as many articles as you want about Hawaii sugar pains.

  6. Send the jobs overseas, and then send 3.5 million Americans disability checks every month, as does the VA. They can buy that foreign candy, and we are set to go.

    • There are 8.7 million people receiving SSA disability insurance every month.

      As for your claim there are Veterans 3.7 million receiving disability benefits, for a total of 45 billion dollars. Took a bit of Bing foo to find that -(Google Fu is easier).

      But somehow giving a Vet a few bucks because he/she got injured (and we were/ are in a war situation) is more understandable, than the folks on SSA who just can’t handle stress, or have ADHD or other fake issues.

    • For SSA in 2011 there were 8.6 million on disability, the total coast of the program was 128.9 billion data can be found here
      in the highlights and trends sub-document.

      The put almost every kid with a fake ADHD diagnosis on the SSA, and for adults it is pretty easy to get on as well with dubious diseases – Unlike the Vets – I had my leg blown off – yeah prove it :P

      • Just another note – did a bit of figuring. The average Vet disability payment is $12162 per year, the average SSA disability payment is $14988 per year.

        I am not sure if you can double dip to any extent.

  7. I’m still waiting to hear an explanation of how 32% (less than a third) constitutes “a vast majority.”

    Simple question: if we can’t trust a simple interpretation of a percentage, how can we trust anything Peak trader says to be true? He never provides any links (save for the one obviously-biased website that you guys have routinely destroyed). He never gives us names. he just says things like “Well, everyone I talk to…” or “well, this one time…”

    I’m just going to say it, since no one else will (or maybe they have. I ain’t been around too long):

    Peak Trader, you are a liar.

    • Dude, don’t rock the boat. He’s a friggin idiot. That’s why so many of us just ignore him. Him and Larry G are seriously not worth your time. Let them live in their little fantasy worlds and just let it go. Trust me, you’ll be much happier for it.

      • He and Larry G – sometimes their posts are hillarious though – but eventualy it is a drag to read though them all. Larry, at times has put up a cogent post or two.

        I think they are both hired by a George Sorros based organization to post leftist economic points on the web.

    • Jack (?), your 32% is an irrelevant and illogical response to my statement. You’re creating responses to statements I didn’t make. Very cute.

      I see you’re still trying to find new fools.

      And, Jon, I’ve already proven you don’t understand economics, along with constantly giving dumb replies on every subject. You’ve been “wrestling” with American mainstream economics, and it has pinned you so hard the floor has an impression of your face.

      • PeakTrader,

        What percentage of economists disagree that “raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour would make it noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment”?

        • Hitssquad, although aliases Jack’s response to my statement makes no sense, the trend has been labor economists have led other economists into believing raising the minimum wage would be a net benefit:

          “Surveys of labor economists have found a sharp split on the minimum wage. Fuchs et al. (1998) polled labor economists at the top 40 research universities in the United States on a variety of questions in the summer of 1996. Their 65 respondents were nearly evenly divided when asked if the minimum wage should be increased. They argued that the different policy views were not related to views on whether raising the minimum wage would reduce teen employment (the median economist said there would be a reduction of 1%), but on value differences such as income redistribution. Daniel B. Klein and Stewart Dompe conclude, on the basis of previous surveys, “the average level of support for the minimum wage is somewhat higher among labor economists than among AEA members.”

          My comment: The data suggest one mechanism is a higher minimum wage will attract more productive workers, including idle workers (or workers out of the labor force), the higher wage will increase demand, and then less productive workers will be hired to meet demand.

        • It should be noted, if the minimum wage is raised from $7.25 to $10 an hour, all workers earning under $10 an hour will get a raise (not just minimum wage workers), and it’s likely many workers earning above $10 an hour will also get a raise.

          • if the minimum wage is raised from $7.25 to $10 an hour, all workers earning under $10 an hour will get a raise

            …Including the ones who lose their jobs? How does that work?

          • If they lose their jobs, they’re not workers, are they?

            If 99% get a raise and 1% lose their jobs, is that good?

          • Robert Solow, who won the Nobel Prize for his analysis of economic growth, stated:

            “The main thing about the (minimum wage) research is that the evidence of job loss is weak. And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests that the impact on jobs is small.”

            My comment: If you want employment rather than faster growth, you can pay low-skilled workers to dig holes and fill them back up again.

          • If 99% get a raise and 1% lose their jobs, is that good?

            …Not if even one person lost his job because you, PaekTrader, interfered with his ability to freely contract.

          • WEll your if 99% gain a salary and 1% lose their job – even if that were remotely true, is a bit of a misnomer because there will be secondary job losses as a result as well.

            I could lose my $60 an hour job because the suppliers have raised their prices to the point, due to your minimum wage mandate, that they decide to cut back on R&D. (R&D is usally the second place companies look for cuts) Also a few assembly workers @$30 per hour will lose their jobs because the price of my product now has to be higher and our customers are conserving more.

            So in the end – the economic activity you lose in the whole economy ends up at least equalling the amount these minimum wage workers are being overpaid.

          • How do you know the opposite isn’t true? What data or studies support your idea?

            You won’t sell much without customers, e.g. minimum and low wage workers, who are paid much less than their productivity.

          • PeakTrader,

            You won’t sell much without customers, e.g. minimum and low wage workers

            If you want them to have money, then give them money.

            who are paid much less than their productivity.

            If that’s true, they’re welcome to start their own businesses and internalize those massive profits you claim they’re missing out on. Have you ever wondered why many of them don’t?

        • Now you’re completely contradicting yourself!

          At first, you say “a vast majority” think supply and demand has no effect, and then you post a quote (source mysteriously omitted) saying that “the median economist said there would be a reduction of 1% [of employment if the minimum wage were to raise].”

          And then you make the completely opposite claim (again!) that “It should be noted, if the minimum wage is raised from $7.25 to $10 an hour, all workers earning under $10 an hour will get a raise” (again, source omitted). How could this possibly be if, on the median, economists believe there would be a 1% decline in teenage employment?

          Peak Trader, are you stupid, or just think everyone else is?

          • Hey, if you want to keep this up, you’re free to, but you’ll never, ever get him to stop. This sort of thing is pretty common for this guy. I believe it was John Dewey (and if I am wrong on this, I apologize) who said he likes to call moments like this “Peak vs. Peak-Earlier-In-The-Same-Thread.”

            For the sake of your sanity, Captain Jack (by the way, great handle. If it’s your real name, that’s awesome. Your parents must be Time Lords), I suggest you just let him go.

          • My statement was about does “economic amnesia” mean the vast majority of economists forgot the only real forces in economics are supply and demand, and all the other forces, i.e. vectors in n-space, that interrelate and interact in the economy, are so weak, they should be completely ignored?

            It has nothing to do with your illogical conclusion, and twisted game, that I said “a vast majority think supply and demand has no effect.”

            And, I stated before, the (positive) income and multiplier effects may be stronger than the (negative) employment effect, up to $15 an hour.

          • He does contradict himself – and also – kinda hillariously frequently makes arguments that support his opposition without realizing it.

            That is the rub with Socialist economics. It is incoherant, so you end up tying yourself in knots trying to defend it. And though you have convinced no-one – except the low information types with a populist argument – you are still smug in thinking your way is right.

            Unfortunatley those low information types seem to have taken over. Set minimum wage to $20 per hour, sounds good to me, and this peaktrader guy says it will improve my productivity as well – I won’t just be sleepin’ on my mop any more (yeah right)

          • Well, it likely would increase productivity per worker, but that’s just because all the least productive people will be out of a job.

            Another way to think about it:

            We have a room full of average people and the Boston Celtics basketball team. The Boston Celtics decide the party sucks and leave. The average height of the rooms falls.

            Is anybody in the room shorter? No. Just the tallest people have left.

            Same thing here. Are the people working more productive? Not significantly, no. Just the least productive workers are now gone

          • marque2, it’s funny how arrogant people, like you, who can’t prove any contradictions in my statements, except by assuming they must be contradictions, because they’re the opposite of what you believe.

          • And setting the minimum wage at $20 may be too high, because the (negative) employment effect will likely be stronger than the (positive) income and multiplier effects.

          • marque and john-

            peak is not worth talking to.

            he lies, misstates facts, contradicts himself, makes appeals to authority, trots out the same debunked nonsense over and over, and uses terms he does not understand.

            he’ll tell you it’s complex and that you need to consider vectors in n space (which he does not have the math to understand) and then try to sell you a monstrously simplified version of y= c+i=g=(x-m) where he ignores i and the effects of reduced investment on future production and wealth. he’ll tell you that correlation is not causality, then try to claim that higher growth rates in the 20th century are proof the fed works.

            he does not even grasp that all these “vectors in n space” he cites to attempt to sound economically literate are what comprise supply and demand because he does not understand integrals. he seems to think they are separate things. but then, he also thinks wages are not prices, so…

            the problem with people that are as deluded as he is is that the more you prove them wrong, the more deeply they believe. it’s just an extreme form of cognitive dissonance.

            there is no way to have a productive discussion, nor to get him to understand that guys who have a model do not prove reality, just their own assumptions.

            hell, the guy thinks card kruger is a real study.

            just ignore him.

            he’s a time waster and will clog thread after thread with absurdities.

            as jon m said, many of us have just stopped reading his posts altogether.

            he’ll then try to be inflammatory enough to get some attention again, but, like a child throwing a tantrum, you have to ignore them or they will just keep doing it.

            it’s just shoveling back the tide. exhausting and pointless.

            please, for the sake of the poor ones and zeros that are being humiliated by being a part of his posts, just ignore him.

            any other course just gets thread after thread of what you are seeing now.

          • QED.

            more illiterate commentary (that sentence does not even make sense) and baseless claims.

            are you attempting to claim that john h and marque are my aliases?

            i suspect they would be deeply surprised to learn that, particularly marque with whom i have had some lenghty debates.

            unlike some people i know, i do not need to create imaginary friends to get people to see the sense of what i am saying.

            most people grow out of imaginary friends and “i know you are but what am i?” in early grade school.

            hell, ask mark if you like. he can check the IP addresses.

            (somehting you should keep in mind in the future)

          • Jon M and Morganovich,

            You guys are absolutely right. This is getting ridiculous.

            As I’ve said before, I am largely self-taught in economics. I’m a military man and I just find it interesting.

            I wasn’t too convinced one way or the other on minimum wage, but to see it so ineffectually defended by someone like Peak Trader makes me steer away from minimum wage laws, not toward them.

            I think I am going to sit back and just read for a while.

            By the way, Jon M, it is purely a coincidence that my name matches with the Doctor Who character, but it is something I rather enjoy.

          • jack-

            that’s funny.

            i thought jon was referring to “captain jack” of pirate fame.

            i guess my doctor who cred is a bit lacking.

            i find it amusing that peak needs to fall back on “conspiracy” and that we are all “sidekicks” or fake names when everyone disagrees with him.

            that’s what happens when you keep trying to argue that 2+2 = 5. people disagree with you of their own accord. why, it’s almost as if such an order emerges all on it’s own! what a novel idea. someone should write about that.

          • morganovich

            i guess my doctor who cred is a bit lacking.

            You’re excused. As far as I can tell, having Doctor Who cred requires either being. – or a close acquaintance of – someone under 16 years old. :)

          • As far as I can tell, having Doctor Who cred requires either being. – or a close acquaintance of – someone under 16 years old. :)

            Ok, first off, I’m 24 and I love the show. Second, it’s been around since the 60′s.

            So, keep your mouth shut, heathen!


          • Jon

            Ok, first off, I’m 24 and I love the show. Second, it’s been around since the 60′s.

            So, keep your mouth shut, heathen!

            Well, I stand corrected! Sorry.

            I had an idea I was going to hear from you after I made such a bold statement. :)

            Please interpret my prior comment to read “…someone under 25 years old.”

            My own introduction to the Doctor was through my 12 year old grandson and his friends.

          • Alias Jack, yes, go back to reading your comic books. At least you tried.

            And, you’re in no position to criticize minimum wage workers.

          • Well, Peak…Doctor Who is a TV show, not a comic book.

            I guess that’s another fact you got wrong!

            Now I guess you’re going to tell me that “all the nerd you talk to” say Doctor Who is a comic book!

            You’re a joke!

  8. Interesting how the sugar topic is ignored. The article mistates the sugar issue a bit. Yeah there are Minnesota sugar beat farmers, but much of the subsidy goes to one landowner in Florida who grows sugar cane and who has strong political connections. Florida is the state that produces most of our cane sugar now.

    In Hawaii, long the sugar capital of the USA – sugar production is dying even with the subsidies – it is just unprofitable to grow sugar in Hawaii any more.

    C&H – Pure Cane Sugar – From Hawaii – Grown in the Sun – When you cook when you bake, for goodness sake get C&H – C&H pure cane sugar is the one;

    Is not long for the world. The C is for California by the way – though only sugar beats have ever been grown in California. The raw sugar was shipped from H to C where it was processed, there is a C&H port in Benitia, CA (or there used to be).

    • Sorry even I get mixed up sometimes – there are no sugar subsidies – it is a price support program – which uses import and domestic growing restrictions.

    • Ken, you and your pathetic sidekicks are the real Trolls.

      Do something constructive and swarm to a political site, where your silly games may be appreciated.

      You and them don’t contribute any value here.

      • It is pretty funny how, when most of us disagree with your sillyness, that all of a sudden we are all clones.

        It would be nice if I could prove that about Obama voters – whom I disagree with. Obama got 50 million votes, but they were from one person! Put Romney in – oh wait, cancel that.

        • marque2, I have degrees in economics, which obviously my “opponents” here don’t. Their arrogance in assuming they understand economics is remarkable.

          I guess, they believe economics is whatever they want it to be. They couldn’t even get into a grad econ program, much less pass it.

          The best and brightest go into grad econ and graduate. Only 3,000 grad econ degrees are awarded in the U.S. each year, a tiny fraction compared to most other common degrees.

          It would be comical if they were in a grad econ program. LOL. They’d be crying and whining or having a nervous breakdown. A little bloody nose and they’ll wimp away.

          They just don’t have what it takes to complete a rigorous and brutal program, like the Scientific Method of NeoClassical Economics, or American mainstream economics.

          And, I get the complete opposite reactions from economists than I do from the make believe crowd here.

          • Just go away then. Nobody here cares about your so called Econ expertise because most of what you say is simple wrong.

            You complain that we call you a troll but reread your last post above and then examine your actions on this blog. Classic definition of troll like behavior.

            Be gone.

          • Krugman not only has a PhD from a prestigious university, but a Nobel prize to boot, yet he’s consistently wrong about all sorts of economic issues, as well as being a partisan hack. Mr. Krugman columnist routinely contracticts Dr. Krugman the economist. Like Krugman, you being credentialed with degrees (which we can only take your word for, so I’m just going to go ahead and take your claim with a giant grain of salt, particularly in light of the so many stupid things you’ve said) doesn’t mean being educated or having real understanding or being principled.

            Unlike you, though, Krugman has a very good excuse for lying and misrepresenting economic facts: he gets paid very well by the NYT to keep his customers happy. You on the other hand live down here in nowhere land with us and are shocked to find that not only are you stupid, but we all call you on it.

            … nom nom nom … You and Larry get fed well here, and sometimes Zach…

          • I noticed you don’t talk “economics” much anymore, because you know you’ll get your ass kicked again.

            You’re still not playing it safe keeping your head in the sand.

            You better get even more help.

          • If we’re going to do appeals to authority based on ourselves, I want in on this:

            I have:
            -6 (soon to be 7) publications
            -I am working toward my Masters in economics at UNH
            -I am an economic consultant to a number of Fortune 500 companies including (but not limited to) Honeywell, International Paper, PPG, Graybar Electric, and Ingersoll Rand.
            -I am an economic forecaster with a 94.7% accuracy rating
            -I am considered an expert in my (admittedly specialized) field
            -My research is used by the Toronto Blue Jays (which, considering the way they played this year, may not be the best thing, but it’s still pretty awesome).
            -I have a number of economic articles published in a number of different trade magazines published by companies/organizations including (but not limited to) NAW, IEWC, NFPA, AHTD, and IndustryWeek
            -I have presented a number of papers at the Federal Reserve in Boston, as well as various NABE conferences.
            -I have a degree in Economics (cum laude) from Framingham State University and certification as a wholesale trade economist from Ohio State University
            -I’m 24 (so the story just started).

            Needless to say, I’m pretty awesome.

          • Jon, why do you pretend you don’t understand economics? All your statements on economics can be taken out of Wikipedia. You choose what you want, while ignoring 99%, and shown no indication you really understand the material.

            As a matter of fact, you very often contradict economics without any reason, except you just say so, based on very shallow and narrow beliefs. You simply declare it’s wrong in the most illogical ways.

            And, if you graduated cum laude and have experience, why did you write such a bunk paper, published in a bunk journal, and say it’s one of your best works?

          • Actually, Peak, I don’t think I qualified which paper is my best paper, so I’m not sure which “bunk” you’re referring to. If I had to pick a favorite, it would either have to be my work on the lemon problem in MLB free agency (more to come on this) or my currently-in-progress paper on Soviet Poland vs. modern day Poland

            But, since according to you all we need is an appeal to authority, the lets look at the score.

            According to you, Peak, all you have is “a degree in economics” (notice how he doesn’t even specify what degree).

            Whereas I have:

            -6 (soon to be 7) publications
            -I am working toward my Masters in economics at UNH
            -I am an economic consultant to a number of Fortune 500 companies including (but not limited to) Honeywell, International Paper, PPG, Graybar Electric, and Ingersoll Rand.
            -I am an economic forecaster with a 94.7% accuracy rating
            -I am considered an expert in my (admittedly specialized) field
            -My research is used by the Toronto Blue Jays (which, considering the way they played this year, may not be the best thing, but it’s still pretty awesome).
            -I have a number of economic articles published in a number of different trade magazines published by companies/organizations including (but not limited to) NAW, IEWC, NFPA, AHTD, and IndustryWeek
            -I have presented a number of papers at the Federal Reserve in Boston, as well as various NABE conferences.
            -I have a degree in Economics (cum laude) from Framingham State University and certification as a wholesale trade economist from Ohio State University

            According to you, that automatically makes me more of the authority than you, therefore making everything I say more valid than anything you should say.

            I have given you my real name. I have given you my accomplishments. Go ahead and fact-check, if you don’t believe me. If you want testimonials, check out my LinkedIn.

            What about you? Where’s your list of accomplishments? When I presented mine, instead of providing yours, you tried to demean me. What’s the matter? Feeling insecure? Upset some 24-year old is more accomplished than you? Feeling inadequate when stacked next to the competition?

            You brought up the appeal to authority. Now either present your authority or bow to mine (and no, saying “I have the authority of other authorities” doesn’t work here. You are not Jesus. You are known to present lies and make up facts to support you. Your word simply isn’t good enough).

          • lol.

            punk trader’s “degrees” are likely fiction and if he did, indeed, get them, then he should get his money back as it appears he was taught merely to use phrases he does not understand and spout neo-marxist/keynsian crap and call it neoclassical mainstream will citing debunked and fraudulent studies and accusing other people of not being real (liekly because he has used this trick himself)

            for the record, i also have a degree in economics, with highest departmental honors, from brown. only 5 people a year get that.

            my thesis adviser (william poole) went on to run the st louis fed after having been a policy adviser to reagan (which was before he taught me). having bill accept you as an advisee is, in itself, no mean feat.

            i have TA’d econ classes and taught game theory and experimental economics summer seminars. (at MIT)

            i also have degrees in political science and philosophy.

            i have worked at several hedge funds, currently run 2 (that specialize in early stage micro cap companies), and have personally started 5 businesses and been an angel investor and early strategist in many more on top of the hundred and hundreds that i have invested in professionally and the literally thousands i have spoken to doing research over the years.

            so, when some joker talks about his one friend with a business like it makes him an expert peak, it’s pretty hilarious to me, especially as it’s clear you do not understand event the rudiments of running a business, much less economics or event hat the behavior of your friend’s firm argues against, not for a min wage. after all, if he could figure out that hiring better workers for more money gets you more bang for your buck, why would others not be able to do likewise?

            you are disproving your own argument and don’t even seem to know it.

            once more your try to foist the “my opponents have no econ education” story and once more you are shown to be a liar.

            as this has happened before and you know full well the facts here, it must be deliberate. (unless you have such an etch a sketch for a memory that you cannot remember basic facts day to day, which, given your rattle headed economics claims, i concede is possible)

            so save your bluster and your conspiracy theories.

            people routinely disagree with your ideas because they are wrong. one need not “hook new fools” to get people to disagree with you. one need only show them your absurd prattle and let them see it for themselves.

            i actually feel bad for you peak. you seem to be a badly deluded and unhappy guy desperately clinging to delusions of adequacy and twisting the world to try to make yourself feel smart and perpetually angry that the world does not appreciate you and that others do not agree with or respect you.

            i bet that’s lonely and that it hurts.

            but at some point, you are going to need to come to grips with a simple fact:

            it’s you, not the dozens of people that have all independently come to the same conclusions about the heroic and esteemed “peak trader”.

            (nice handle btw, only a complete potzer would pick it. no one who was really any sort of trader would do so. it’s like picking “bigschlong6969″ as your handle on a dating site. you’d get laughed off any professional trading floor for doing it. but, of course, why would you know that…)

          • My big question since this is all econ 101 – 102 stuff – so they teach the multitudes lies in the beginning courses – but when you go upper division they teach you the truth about things like minimum wage? Why wouldn’t they put it in the beginning books to begin with? Or is it some economist trade secret?

            I guess I wouldn’t know my undergrad is in business admin where I had to take only 4 econ courses. And then I got an MS in Computer science. So Samuelson told me crap s part some economists big joke?

          • My big question since this is all econ 101 – 102 stuff – so they teach the multitudes lies in the beginning courses – but when you go upper division they teach you the truth about things like minimum wage?

            I know you’re being semi-sarcastic here, but I want to answer truthfully.

            The answer is “sort-of.” Your basic econ 101 stuff is foundational. You learn the logic behind the models, learn how to think like an economist, and all that good stuff.

            The higher level stuff is more empirical. But, of course, empirical doesn’t always match the model 100%. It never does, because you have countless factors playing into things. To quote Henry Hazlitt, the “bad economists” look at those anomalies and try to claim that this violates something, and that therefore everything is wrong. They ignore what is unseen and focus only what is on the seen.

            Think of it like this: you drop a feather off a building 100 times. 99 of those times, it goes straight down. On the 100th time, it floats up first and then goes down. The “bad physicists” would argue this is evidence that gravity is not a law and therefore the idea that you drop something and it will fall is false. That’s what we got going on here.

            Now, there are models that show that minimum wage can result in higher employment: the monopsony model. This is when there is one buyer of a good, in this case, low-skill wage. Personally, I don’t buy this explanation as too likely in anything but the smallest of markets (say, a town whose only employer is Wal-Mart). This is also NOT the argument he is making. Some intro courses cover this, most do not (I know I never taught it when I was a tutor).

          • marque-

            to add to what jon said so well, there is another factor at play as well:

            not all economists seek truth. many are whores. (with apologies to the hardworking members of the oldest profession who i have tainted by associating them with krugman et al)

            the do not start by seeking truth, but rather by finding a patron or ideology and supplying rationalization.

            most of “labor economics” works like this.

            populist politicians give out grants and hire folks for staff and can get your name in the paper etc.

            so folks like card and kruger start with their conclusions, then seek out ways to slant studies and fudge data to get the “right” answer. they deliberately seek out the one time the feather rose and try to pass it off as normal. i fear they are learning from climate scientists.

            the card-kruger study is so bad and so synonymous with fraud and bad design that many economists call referring to it “playing the kruger card”.

            note that this is the “foundational” study peak loves to cite. it’s first iteration was proven to be fraud. they literally made up their data. (who does that remind you of?) the second one is questionable at best, refuted by better data of the same restaurants, and is so flawed in design that it could not possibly measure what it claims to. even so, it refutes itself. it claims no change due to a min wage hike. but jobs increased int he rest of new jersey, and there were flat. a decrease in growth is still a decrease.

            you can use the brakes on your bike and still pick up speed going down a hill. this does not mean that your brakes make you go faster, though a charlattan might point to the correlation and claim it is so. that is card and kruger.

            but its authors are now famous and get to go to political dinners and get quoted on policy issues. they helped create a whole fraudulent branch of the econ tree.

  9. I’ve revealed Morganovich has two aliases here for certain. I suspect, there are many more, in part, because the stronger my position, the more I get attacked.

    Of course, the real fools, which aren’t that many, are happy to jump on the Morganovich bandwagon.

    • oh please.

      i have one name here: morganovich.

      you see goblins and plots everywhere because you are such a liar that you assume everyone else is too.

      you have revealed nothing. there is nothing to reveal.

      i have never posted here under any other name and i am full on calling you out here as a liar and a buffoon.

      i’m sorry you are so deluded and fake that you assume others are, but i am not going to tolerate your trying to claim that i am.

      there’s no plot peak. i am not using fake names to attack you. people are doing it all on their own.

      you are just so wedded to your delusions of competence that your brain is twisting the world to ignore the evidence that pretty much everyone here realizes that you are a fool.

      • “I’ve revealed Morganovich has two aliases here for certain. I suspect, there are many more, in part, because the stronger my position, the more I get attacked.”

        you may actually need psychiatric help peak. this is a pretty severe persecution fantasy.

        i think the problem is that you are getting a word wrong.

        it’s “the more ABSURD your position gets, the more you get attacked”

        if you consistently mistake absurd positions for strong ones, this sort of thing happens to you.

        there are no fake profiles. there is no plot to thwart your greatness. your just an economic illiterate that cannot accept that fact and is creating fantasy worlds to defend your delusions.

    • Peak, let’s be honest here for a moment:

      Do you honestly think Morganovich has so much time on his hands that he can assume three different identities, each with their own names, experiences, nuanced way of talking/typing, and who frequently post at the same time, just to argue with you?

      Man, your ego is way out of control.

        • This semester Rachel Maddow and Chis Mathews will be guest lecturers. And even better Kieth Overman is in charge of Athletics!

          Best part – there is no tuition because your degree is compliments of “The Rich”

          • is the school motto “de iteratione, verum” (from repetition, truth?)

            lenin would be proud.

  10. Morganovich, when I come here and see you and your “misery loves company” crowd, formed like a school of fish, including with decoys, it just shows you’re pathetic.

    You’ve worked so hard to drive people away, who disagreed with your BS.

    It’s really sad you feel you need to be here leading the circus parade, and pretend you understand things you’ve proven you don’t.

    It’s a waste of time for you.

    I’m here mostly to organize and save my thoughts on complex subjects, like the labor market, and save other people’s valuable comments (at least, before you drove them away).

    However, all you do is play little games, spread misinformation, and prove your ignorance of economics. What kind of life is that?

    • peak-

      LOL. you truly are the mayor of delusion town.

      you are a liar and a fraud.

      what decoys?

      i have never, ever used an alias here other than morganovich. hell, ask mark top check the IP addresses and see if there has ever been another log in from mine. then i’ll do the same for you. won’t that be fun?

      put up or shut up liar.

      you are now making a perfect fool of yourself.

      please, tell us who the “decoys” are.

      i want the people who actually use those names to see you for the proven fake you are.

      you mind is so twisted up in a ball of cognitive dissonance, that you ignore obvious facts and essentially use “i know you are but what am i” as a response to criticism.

      what are you, 8?

      it’s not some plot peak. ever been at a party and seen the oblivious drunk guy offending everyone and calling them jerks and the women lesbians because they won’t sleep with him?

      that’s you buddy.

      you just don’t know it.

      gah, theshe guys don’t know any economish! i’m the ecomonicsh guy! listen to me! i’m edzhekated!

      alas, unlike the drunk, you will not wake up tomorrow and realize what a buffoon and a jerk you were. you’ll just keep on being you. sad really.

    • And, you don’t know anything about me. So, how can you conclude you have a higher “score” on “appeal to authority.” (I was comparing expertise to incompetence)

      Take some economics, you’ll learn about a sound methodology.

    • um, wow.

      that may be the stupidest thing i have ever heard anyone say on CD. you brain is really breaking, huh?

      we know a great deal about you peak.

      we know you lie, we know you have a desperate need to seem educated and informed, and we know that you are not. we also know that you favor every sort of top down coercive policy you can think up. people unable to compete on their own merits often do.

      jon, on the other hand, clearly has an economics background and understands the topics being discussed.

      you could not pass micro or macro econ 101.

      • Morganovich, if you understood your comments, everything you say are the “stupidest things you’ve ever heard anyone say.”

        Of course, no one has the time to respond to all your busy little games. However, they’re fun to watch how you play them and lead the real fools on this blog.

        I don’t need to “appeal to authority,” I just use my expertise in economics.

        You and Jon have proven, constantly, you both don’t understand economics. You simply don’t have the education and experience. It’s really pathetic you can’t have a conversation in economics.

        I could list my actual accomplishments in school (including the quality of my econ degrees) and business (including the quantity of value produced), which of course, most people would find very impressive. However, you’d scream “liar,” “fraud,” “nonsense,” etc..

        You’re easy to figure out.

        • lol.

          hey, look, more “i know you are, but what am i”.

          seriously, could you even pass a turing test?

          you will not list your accomplishments because you have few, if any of any note.

          when criticized and proven to be a liar, you just make the same claims about others and never address the issue.

          you claim “authority” but say things that would get anyone laughed out of freshman econ and told maybe they should get a degree in phys ed, will not state your credentials, and refuse to even name all these “aliases” you have “proven”.

          come on peak, you made the claim.

          you said you had “reveled” them. but you havene’t.

          so do it.

          tell us who is not a real person.

          i want you to do it and prove to those people, once and for all, that you are a liar.

          so put or or shut up punk trader.

    • Peak, I only know what you’ve said. And all you’ve said is you have a degree in economics. That’s it.

      You got more, then present it. But right now, the score is:

      Me: 15
      You: 1

      • Jon, I’ve been presenting, and reflecting, American mainstream economics, which flew completely over your head. You weren’t even aware the home runs were hit standing in left field. The score is me and economics 100. You nothing. Get your head out of the sand and look at the scoreboard.

        I’m sure some of what you say about your “accomplishments” is true. Unfortunately, you don’t see my accomplishments that are implicit in statements. You just don’t know my expertise far exceeds you, in school and business.

        Me: A
        You: F

        • lol.

          peak, the fact that you think that you are even in a league where you can even have a discussion with jon, much less win a debate with him on econ is pretty much the whole problem here.

          i’m not sure i have ever met anyone whose opinion of his own knowledge and ability so far exceeds what it really is.

          you are the econ equivalent of erkel claiming he is mike tyson.

          you may be the most deluded guy i have ever come across.

          • wow, is this really you peak? Did you really turn a 100,000 portfolio on July 1st, 2007 to currently a $55,000 portfolio????? All my clients are up big from their July 1st 2007 values. Peak, you should give up on investing. at the very least you should immediately stop posting here and move your account to Morganovich’s firm before you drive your portfolio to zero. Wow…


          • Yes, that’s really me, although fortunately, the picture is of a satisfied client :) That’s a personal portfolio, just “mad money.”

            There are other accounts where I hit it big, for both me and a few friends, e.g. making over a 40 times return just trading IMCL calls over six months in 2003 (and happened to bail out at the right time), buying RMBS 2000 calls a month before it rose from $70 to $470, and made huge gains, although I sold everything too soon, buying DNA calls, before it rocketed, and many other calls on stocks, along with buying stocks mostly under $10 outright, where they eventually went way up, although often much later than I expected.

            I’ve hit it big several times. I know what works and what doesn’t. Trading the market everyday doesn’t work. However, researching a hundred stocks with a market cap of around $1 billion and finding real value in one or two stocks has paid off. I haven’t been doing the research for quite a while though.

            And, no, I don’t want to invest in Morganovich’s day trading basement.

          • Peak,

            All the other stuff that has been said on this site aside, do yourself a favor Peak, stop posting here. Focus on what is important in your life.

            The negativity that you attract to yourself on this site can only do harm to your emotional well being.

            Just some unsolicited advice, for what it is worth.


          • Also, I may add, I’ve closed the site, perhaps, eight years ago. I had many clients. I sometimes made them a lot of money and other times lost them a lot of money. So, I closed the site.

            Anyway, I know how to “hit it big,” risking a little to make a lot. When I need to, I’ll research stocks that aren’t too big or too small, and pick one to three of them.

          • okay Peak, your track record does not really matter.

            Take my advice, our differences in opinion aside, you do yourself no good posting on this site.

          • no one can really think that you come away from your exchanges with Morganovich anything other that bruised and battered Peak. Even if I agreed with your views (which I obviously do not) it is clear that you get trumped by him every time. can you not see that?

            only a masochist would keep coming back for more. I can only think that there is more at work here with you than just your wrongheaded views.

            Take my advice buddy, find someplace else to post.

          • Givemefreedom, you’re too politically biased to accept the reality about Morganovich.

            All Morganovich really does now is shake his fists and shrill names, like “liar,” “fraud,” “cheater,” etc.

            It’s pathetic. LOL

            However, I enjoy his games :)

          • Morg,

            I tried, but to no avail. As was said before regarding another poster, it is like wrestling a pig. You just end up dirty and the pig likes it. Better to just let him wallow in the mud.

      • Does this remind you of anyone? This is from Cafe Hayek:

        Ed Crane’s Wisdom
        by Don Boudreaux on October 24, 2013

        in Hubris and humility, Politics

        I had the pleasure of attending a talk that Cato’s president emeritus, Ed Crane, delivered this evening on George Mason University’s Fairfax campus. Ed said many wise things – but his single best line of the evening, in my opinion, is this one:

        There are two types of human beings: people who want to interfere in the way other people live their lives, and people who are content to mind their own business. Which type of people do you think go in to politics?

        The answer is as obvious as the question is important.

        Politics is the domain of busybodies. Politics attracts, with a kind of socio-supermagnetism, people with unusually bloated egos and excessively high opinions of themselves – high opinions that assure them (falsely, to be sure) that they are not only competent but also entitled to lord it over lesser folk. Politics is the natural occupation of people who, not content to tend to their own affairs, itch to control also the affairs of others. The ranks of politicians swell with egotistical, arrogant, and officious buttinskies who are constitutionally immune to any sense of humility or decent regard for the privacy and personal preferences of others. Politics is the home of intolerant bosses – petit fuhrers – sure of their own superiority and confident of the incapacity of ordinary men and women to survive without being leashed and led by those to whom heaven, in its incontestable wisdom, has given political power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>