The Trouncing of Louiethegreater

[Travis Retriever]

Furthermore, the EPI began a campaign to make it seem as if most economists now believe that raising the minimum wage does not lead to an increase in unemployment. This is, of course, ridiculous. A detailed study by the University of New Hampshire revealed that 77% of those members of the American Economics Association described as labor economists -- those most likely to be inclined toward the union position - agreed that minimum wage hikes had a detrimental effect on employment. In other words, in opposition to EPI's list 650 is a collection of nearly 14,000 (!) economists in that one group alone. Other studies have placed the level of agreement on this point at 73%, 82.5% (both Fuller/Geide-Stevenson) and as much as 90% (American Economic Review). A look at the list of economists EPI noted as favoring a minimum wage hike included several from ... the Economic Policy Institute, including "leading" economist Lawrence Mishl, and still more from the Keystone Research Center and the Fiscal Policy Institute (two of those linked organizations). Several others work (or worked) directly for the unions themselves.

Here's the thing, even if the EPI was right; that, a majority of economists thought an increase in the minimum wage wouldn't effect unemployment, or even decrease it, it would still be a bogus argument from authority AND an argument from popularity.
Science does not work by majority vote or by who says what.  It works by the evidence.

[MrBogosity]

Wow! All this over one guy? Is he REALLY worth all that? He seems just your typical statist cultist to me.

[Gumba Masta]

Some people obsess easely.
For me it's cat girls with maid outfits and chainsaws.

[Virgil0211]

Wow! All this over one guy? Is he REALLY worth all that? He seems just your typical statist cultist to me.

Well, you have to put it in context. This is after Louiethegreater had been stalking Fletch for well over a year, both on his page and in videos he would comment on. You know that whole thing about debunking creationists or moon hoaxers, how it'll often take much longer to debunk their claims than they take to make new ones? This is part of that.

Besides, I found it rather informative.

[Travis Retriever]

As these figures are from the US Census Bureau, literally the ONLY source of poverty data in the US, any attempt to portray them as manipulated or unreliable while stating contrary figures that, by definition, cannot be from a legitimate source, is nothing more than another obvious lie.

This is a best game in town fallacy.
So there's no other way?
What about independent assessments, like the ones done of M3 to find the rate of inflation?
Why couldn't something by done similar to that for poverty?

And to update, behold:  http://www.shadowstats.com/
I do believe that's a one and up.

[Travis Retriever]

"NAFTA's opponents attribute much of the displacement caused in the US labor market to the United States' growing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada. According to the EPI, the widening of the deficit has caused the dislocation of domestic production to other countries with cheaper labor and supported the loss of 879,280 US jobs."

Which is a statement from the EPI that doesn't make any sense.
Somebody link them to Shane's video on the trade deficits.
They aren't a bad thing.

[Travis Retriever]

(as one should expect from an assessment of real world events in which all variables cannot be completely controlled).

Speaking of which, I can think of quite a few variables that cause outsourcing, hell, even total job destruction, that louie has yet to even consider.
1. Our inflationary monetary policy
2. Our plethora of regulations making it more expensive to hire American workers.
3. Our high tax rates.

[Travis Retriever]

4) THE "DE-INDUSTRIALIZATION" OF AMERICA

Adding to his points about this, according to Shane, before the current recession hit, we were at all all time high of industrial production.
Also, while it is true that the USA has the highest imports of any country, before the current recession hit (in 2004), it was also the second highest exporter of goods, second only to Germany, according to the World Trade Organization.

[Travis Retriever]

not to mention the key growth driver, which was post-War recovery combined with westward expansion)

AND that this period was also one of, if not the, most economically free period of any time before or since.

[Travis Retriever]

Elizabeth Warren, as can be seen in many of the other videos in which she can be found, is an accomplished authority on the law -- particularly bankruptcy law and -- and solid researcher (I don't even hold her alignment with the Huffington Post against her), but her understanding of economics and banking (while countless light-years beyond louie's) is not nearly as robust. Consider the lecture she is giving here. She makes a number of good points about income volatility, about the increase in consumer debt and the reduction of savings (though the nature of savings and whether or not investment in real estate -- a primary home -- should be included along with other savings which is an ongoing debate), but the bulk of her argument amounts to the fallacy of double counting (particularly as louie interprets it).

In fact, louie misstates her position by arguing that the costs of "Housing increased 76% ... Healthcare increased 74% ... A second car to [facilitate] working moms increased 53% [and] Childcare [increased] 100%". But louie, like, sadly, far too many who have commented on the video, confuses an increase in outlays with an increase in price (inflation). This is much of the problem, particularly since Warren is giving this impression throughout the video, arguing that now families "have to" do certain things that they didn't have to do in the past. The reality is quite different.

To add to Fletch's points.
The increase both in outlays (e.g. mom having to work, thereby increasing the need of childcare), is because of government taking well over half of our income in the form of taxes, of which, the inflation tax is one of.
So whether or not Louie is correct, the increase in those things is hardly a point in his favor...

[Travis Retriever]

Early in the video (about 9 minutes in), she shows a graph indicating that in real (inflation adjusted) dollars, the median household is materially wealthier than they were 35 years before (this, by itself, demonstrates yet another one of louie's claims, that "since the 70s we have added the second worker to the workforce in order to MAINTAIN the household income [emphasis mine]" is just another lie). She then spends the bulk of the remainder of the video discussing what those households spend that additional wealth on -- primarily more house. It must be remembered that the increase in the price of housing has already been accounted for when incomes are adjusted for inflation, so all she is saying is that the median household has CHOSEN to expend their resources in order to obtain more (or better) housing. Her assertion that homes are being built only for the top 20% of households is not only unsupported by her data but contrary to reality. In fact, as can easily be discerned form home ownership percentages, the real driver behind this increased outlay in houses is the shift from renting to home ownership for a greater number of Americans with lower incomes that dates to long before the expansion of the housing bubble.

Eh?  Last I checked, household incomes were about constant when adjusted for inflation (see Harry Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work for source figures), however, I suppose it is possible that those figures don't take into account an increase in the quality of goods (e.g. today's XBox 360's vs yesteryear's Atari 2600's).

And even if Browne is wrong, it's still a moot point.
Put another way, how much faster would incomes be rising if we had a 100% free market?

[Travis Retriever]

I now seem to have the highest cluon-post ratio on the forum. =P

You're welcome.

[MrBogosity]

Adding to his points about this, according to Shane, before the current recession hit, we were at all all time high of industrial production.

That's based on Real US Manufacturing GDP Per Capita.

[Travis Retriever]

6) LOUIE THE CAPITALIST?!?!

Oh, this should be good.
The idea that this protectionist Dummkopf is a "capitalist" is laughable in its own right!

[Travis Retriever]

limits to corporate profits

Given what the legal definition of a "corporation" is, I'm assuming he means, "business" with that statement.
Corporations, by definition, cannot exist in a free market.