Muhammad Rasheed's Blog, page 204

A Gold-Plated but Flimsy Excuse

Muhammad Rasheed -



Muhammad Rasheed - The highlighted downside seems to be suggesting that people aren't more likely to hoard the fiat Federal Reserve money, and yet, isn't the 99%'s complaint that the 1% are hoarding the bulk of the world's wealth and why the concept of "trickle down" economics is a myth?
If the downside is something we experience anyway under a system that continuously devalues the dollar (and keeps us in a perpetual warring state), then how come we can't fight for a system that returns the dollar’s value so that what we make can buy more?

Jeremy Travis - So then if paper fiat currency was supposed to NOT be hoarded like gold, but it is still hoarded like gold, then why not have it be backed by gold since it is no less likely to be hoarded as compared to gold AND it's value will not depreciate over time?

Is that your argument?

Muhammad Rasheed - Sure, since that was "the" downside the author cited, other than the weight.

Jeremy Travis - If money is tied to a finite resource like gold how will it expand as the economy expands because the population expands?

Muhammad Rasheed - Define the economy 'expanding' in that context?

The sole benefit to being on the debt/credit fiat system is to fund the war machine. When tied to a finite resource, it forces govs to be more fiscally responsible, and not too quick to dive into war.

Jeremy Travis - "Define the economy 'expanding' in that context?"

Pres. Nixon took the US off of the gold standard in 1971. As of 1970, the US Census showed the nation's population being 203.3million. As of 2010, the US Census showed the nation's population being 308.7million. That's a little over 50% increase in people in the nation. Granted, not all of that number of people is a part of the economy, but assuming the number of people in the economy rose by 50% as well in 40 years, what money would those extra people be using if the gold we have is finite? Would we have to acquire 50% more gold in 40 years in order to keep up? Or does gold lose value based on their being more people in the nation using it?

Muhammad Rasheed - Gold would go up in value because of the demand for it in the markets. The gold-backed USD would purchase more for less, and cents would be able to do what dollars do now. It would just be the opposite of the current over-printing, devaluing trend.

Jeremy Travis  - So then more people in the population would make the gold standard a better model for currency?

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't see why it would be an issue. Naturally we wouldn't have to be under the same restrictions that ISIS/ISIL are under, so we can continue to use paper and electronic notes to represent the gold in the stores.

Wondering Knight - Yeah you are on to something. I was listening to the audio version of Supply Shock. It talk about how the endless pursuit of growth posits a false world of endless resources. I don't know if returning to gold is the answer but yeah chasing economic growth is really about creating empires of imaginary wealth, without giving real value to an economy, as well as so much environmental destruction.

See Also:  Defense of the Gold Standard & the Discovery of Freedom, pt 1 of 7

BATTLE MODE - Defending the Faith

Rayshaun Justice - 


Rayshaun Justice - Islam origins
Muhammad Rasheed - lol The origins of the religion of Islam are Muhammad and his relationship with his Lord. The worship of the One God predates all paganism. There may very well be certain specific rituals in the three new Abrahamic faiths that can be traced back to older cultural systems, but the worship of the One God is how mankind began.
Paganism is the taint that infected the species afterwards.
Charlotte Mouaga - Alloat, muzza and manaot are deities mentioned in Sura 53:19–20
Muhammad Rasheed - Are you aware that in verse 23 of the same chapter, God condemns these same three "deities" as mere names that the pagans and their fathers invented? 
The monotheism of Islam is the continuation of the original monotheism that the very first human knew. All paganism is after the fact inventions by weak minds.
Charlotte Mouaga - islam came 6 centuries after christianity.....
Muhammad Rasheed - Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the last in a long line of prophet-messengers that preached the monotheism of the Supreme Creator since the creation of Adam the patriarch. The message of God preached by all the Hebrew prophets, and the Arab prophet, were one message: Believe in God, reject evil, do good, repent when you fall.
Charlotte Mouaga - doesn't say that in sura 9
Muhammad Rasheed - It says it throughout the entire Qur'an... that they were all of one brotherhood, who preached the same message, were anointed to the same mission. That's why the believers are commanded to treat them all the same, and hold none of them up higher than any other.
Charlotte Mouaga - The Ka‘aba contains pagan images of these moon gods
Muhammad Rasheed - Ka'aba was cleansed of pagan foolishness when the believers returned triumphant to Mecca to put the pagans in their proper place in the anointed holy city. Since then it's been rebuilt several times. There are no longer any pagan images within the House of Allah. Glory be to He!
Charlotte Mouaga - that doesnt matter the origins are still pagan
Muhammad Rasheed - The origins of the Ka'aba are that it was built by Abraham and his oldest son Ishmael (some legends say it was built by Adam, but I don't give that any weight other than as a curio). The Arabs hadn't had a prophet-messenger to instruct them in scripture & wisdom since Ishmael, so over the thousands of years, the holy shrine became coated and filled with pagan nonsense. The final messenger of the One God, the 'comforter' and unlettered prophet himself ordered the holy house cleansed and re-dedicated back to the Lord of all the worlds... a state it has remained in for these 1,500 years since.
Charlotte Mouaga - uh thats idol worship....
Muhammad Rasheed - What's idol worship?
Charlotte Mouaga - worshipping the Ka'aba is idol worship
Muhammad Rasheed - No one worships the Ka'aba, Charlotte. God commands the believer to demonstrate our unity by facing in the direction of His House when we pray to Him. That's all. No one asks the Ka'aba to bestow blessings upon them. lol
Muhammad Rasheed - It is the One God of Abraham alone that we worship, His aid that we seek.
Charlotte Mouaga - thats idol worship.
Muhammad Rasheed - What does it mean to "worship" something, Charlotte?
Charlotte Mouaga - and no one is certain (well, apart from what muslims say) about the origins of the Kaba so you are lying. Only mohammed made that claim
Charlotte Mouaga - devotion??
Charlotte Mouaga - and why would Mohammed order his followers to face Jerusalem if the Kaba was the house of God??????
Muhammad Rasheed - That Abraham & Ishmael built it was a known concept even before Al-Islam came; long have the Arabs traced their linage back to the son of Abraham. This was common knowledge. Can this be definitively, scientifically proven without a shadow of a doubt? Probably not. But in absence of any reasonable alternate theory (pagan origins are not reasonable btw), this will do.
Calling me a liar for believing it and sharing it is over-the-top.
Muhammad Rasheed - The prophet didn't order the believers to face Jerusalem, God did it. In the Qur'an the reason He gave was to test them. Some of them did make a fuss about it, and God let them know -- firmly -- that it was not a righteous deed to face in one direction or another during prayer (He then listed the righteous deeds that WOULD count towards their purity for paradise), and said that if they continued to fuss about it then they only prove to love trivial traditionalism and foolishness more than Him.
Charlotte Mouaga - facing another direction- what a challenge gasp emoticon No, he hoped that Jews would receive him
Muhammad Rasheed - It was a challenge. The Jews weren't exactly their friends at the time, and they had their own traditional direction to face, which their prophet confirmed belonged to the One God.
Muhammad Rasheed - The command hurt them in their feels. lol
Charlotte Mouaga - if you say so..
Muhammad Rasheed - It's told in the Qur'an itself:
The Holy Qur'an Surah 2: 142-144 142 The fools among the people will say: "What hath turned them from the Qibla to which they were used?" Say: To Allah belong both east and West: He guideth whom He will to a Way that is straight. 143 Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful.  144 We see the turning of thy face (for guidance to the heavens: now Shall We turn thee to a Qibla that shall please thee. Turn then Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque: Wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction. The people of the Book know well that that is the truth from their Lord. Nor is Allah unmindful of what they do.
The context isn't difficult to correlate if you know the prophet Muhammad's biography.
Muhammad Rasheed - It's too early for hostility, Charlotte.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Charlotte Mouaga - its 11:23 pm where I am and there is no hostility. Why do you assume that?
Muhammad Rasheed - Uhhh... because you called me a liar, and all of your responses are curt.  It's 7:33am over here.
Charlotte Mouaga - cool.
Charlotte Mouaga - I know that mohammed included sabean astral worshippers in the quran   :P
Muhammad Rasheed - Hostility is NOT 'cool,' Charlotte. It's mean! lol
Charlotte Mouaga - aight lol
Muhammad Rasheed - It was God who said that as long as the Sabians believed in Him, rejected evil, and did good, they would indeed receive their reward on the Day of Judgment. It is He that knows, and we that know not.
Muhammad Rasheed - devotion - love, loyalty, or enthusiasm for a person activity or cause
worship - to show reverence and adoration, esp. for a deity
Muhammad Rasheed - So if you love your husband, show loyalty to him, or express enthusiasm for seeing him, are you worshiping him as an idol?  Those terms are not synonymous.  
Charlotte Mouaga - I only worship God.
Muhammad Rasheed - The same for me. Obeying Him and facing the direction He commanded I face while worshiping Him doesn't change that.
Charlotte Mouaga - You worship a pagan stone
Muhammad Rasheed - lol I don't worship the black stone either, Charlotte.
Honestly, you should just ask.
Muhammad Rasheed - hahaha
Charlotte Mouaga - lol... I dont see how that can make a person more holy. Thats just a pattern of behaviour that you conform to. It does not transform your heart
Muhammad Rasheed - Committing to obeying the Lord Most High makes you holy by default.
Charlotte Mouaga - How can it? You still fall short
Muhammad Rasheed - What do you mean? 'Holy' is consecrated or dedicated to God. If I make a conscious choice to commit to Him and His commands, it makes me holy. If I fall short, then I do what He said to do when I fall short, and regain my holy status once more.
Charlotte Mouaga - lol....what if you die and dont get the chance to do that?
Muhammad Rasheed - *Holy Status Fail*

Hollywood Doubles-Down on Risk Aversion

Muhammad Rasheed - What ‘Star Wars’ gets wrong about blacks and women

Muhammad Rasheed - "In 1980, when the handsome, deep-voiced Billy Dee Williams appeared on-screen as Lando Calrissian, he exuded sex appeal — though don’t get it twisted, there was no actual love interest available for him to attach to all that swagger. But at least he brought it to the party. Later, when he turned out to be a general in the Rebel Alliance, that seemed like a solid redirection of his powers. In subsequent movies, Mace Windu, played by Samuel L. Jackson, was a Jedi master, but was not a lead, and was one-note, hardcore." ~Lonnae O'Neal

Same ole, same ole...?

I wasn't expecting anything different from Bogle's insights with how they portrayed the Finn character, because Hollywood is Hollywood after-all; one-trick pony is their thing. But the part that actually offends me -- considering the levels of super-hype -- were what Brandon Easton pointed out regarding the usage of A New Hope as a story-plot template.

I hate that risk averse bs. I thought Brandon was being VERY generous with his 7/10 rating, because that lazy version of "writing" would never get that high a rating from ME. Is that the quality of screenplay work they pay Hollywood blockbuster writers? smh

They could have addressed the issues people had with the Prequels without repackaging A New Hope, and took the franchise to a new level of awesome. Repackaging what we already know (have memorized, actually) is not how you do that. Personally, I would have preferred making Jar Jar the dark Sith master that that one blogger theorized.

Ba Sheer A. Musawwir - I was thinking all the money they spent on pre-release toys, and amped up trailers, that, that money should have been spent on better screen writers and reshoots

Muhammad Rasheed - Considering they hired Lawrence Kasdan, one of the co-writers of the nigh universally loved Empire Strikes Back, I'm not sure "better" was necessarily the issue. The story was deliberately guided [held back] in a certain direction.

John Olchak - Agree 100%.

Doc Stern... Mr. Monster versus The Incredible HULK

That Removable Partisan Skin

Gary McCoy - This Day in History… Republicans Pass Anti-KKK Act – Outlawing Democratic Terrorist Groups

Or as Democratic senator Robert Byrd called it: 'A day that will live in infamy'.

Pat Byrnes - And don't get me started on those damned Whig partiers...

Dianne Hauser - These guys are a bunch of red necks not just in the South but can be found all over in rural parts of states. They and the skinheads hate all races except their own and scare the crap out everyone else. Another blight on our already ragged country.

David Becker - These guys and all social justice warriors should be rounded up separated from the rest of us.

Muhammad Rasheed –  "Welcome to Mississippi" (HBO)

Gary McCoy - Muhammad, is this a contest of who can post the most racist crap on facebook? Okay, I'll see yours and raise you one.

Extreme racist black panther wants to KILL white people

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary McCoy wrote: "...is this a contest of who can post the most racist crap on facebook?"

lol It is NOW! hahaha I was just demonstrating that the same gene pool that the KKK recruits out of, no longer votes Democrat, since you seemed to have missed the memo on that one.

But I see your one "black panther" retard who merely WANTS to kill white people, and I raise you this:



Muhammad Rasheed - Your move.

Gary McCoy - Just to give balance, there's this...

Four Georgia men arrested for 'beating to death' former Marine who survived TWO tours of duty in Iraq

Now, we could continue counter-punching, but I think it's fair to conclude there are racists of every color. Now, I say we should all hold hands and sing Kumbaya. That is, unless that hand next to you is holding the head of a decapitated Christian.

Muhammad Rasheed - POLICE BRUTALITY: Unarmed Marine Veteran Killed by Police After Medical Alert Tag Goes Off

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary McCoy wrote: "That is, unless that hand next to you is holding th head of a decapitated Christian."

I hope not, since my wife and daughter are Christians. O_O

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had a Christian wife. The ruler of Egypt at the time sent her as part of a tribute package, and the prophet freed her and then married her. She was the only one of his wives to birth a son, although he passed away as an infant.

Of interest, the prophet never, ever tried to convert her to Islam. The Qur'an says the Christians are the people of God, as they claim, and as long as they believe and their good deeds outweigh their bad ones, they will receive their reward.

The Christian is not the enemy of the Muslim. Only those psychopaths who merely pretend to follow Islam declare war on the People of the Book.

Gary McCoy - So are my wife and son. So as is often the case, we've come full circle to our usual love-fest. And all is right with the world.

With Every Wind of Doctrine...

Gary McCoy – Here's the situation:

Some politicians and media pundits tell us that the Muslims in this country are all patriotic and peace-loving. But they then go on to tell us that using the term, "radical Islamic extremists", or speaking of temporarily banning Muslims from entering the country, could very well push "over the edge", those Muslims feeling disenfranchised, to where they join ISIS and commit terrorism in our country.
SO, what they're actually saying is that we have Muslims in our country at this very moment, whose temperament is so volatile, that hearing Donald's Trump plan, or other criticism of Islamic extremism, could then begin killing their fellow Americans.
Sounds like we need to immediately start retroactive profiling, and fast.

Michael Nicholson - They also want to take away "anti-choice rhetoric" for the exact same reason. They just have everyone's best interests in mind. So long as you're lefty.

Gordon Campbell - "That pesky 1st amendment has to go! Just as soon as we dismantle the 2nd!"

Marc Sova - Exactly. It's like obama telling us they are not Muslims. Then saying that invading is what they what us to do so it fulfills their Koranic prophecy.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol What "Koranic prophecy" would that be, Marc? ISIS/ISIL hasn't been interested in what the Qur'an says up to now, why would they suddenly give a shit about prophecies today? The only serious prophecy in the Qur'an of relevance is the one where God promises that the Day of Judgment is a certainty, and the evil doers will be flung head first into The Pit. ISIS is clearly unconcerned about it. Odd considering they claim allegiance to the religion of the One God.
Marc Sova - Well I don't expect you to put much stock in the über right wing New York Times (which is sourced in this article)...

Fighting an army of the insane - Obama’s foreign policy plays into Koranic ‘prophecy’

Muhammad Rasheed - The part that stands out most is her instant willingness to quote Jean-Pierre Filiu, but no quotes of this actual "prophecy." I guess they're afraid people will Snopes it to death...?

Marc Sova - So you're saying it is totally false that there is anything in the Koran about a prophecy regarding an Armageddon like battle with "Rome" (i.e.- the west).

Muhammad Rasheed - The only mention of a battle like that was one in the prophet's lifetime between Romans vs Persians. There is no end time prophecy battle mentioned between specific armies.

Muhammad Rasheed - I wanted her to quote it so I could scrutinize it in context.

Marc Sova - Ok well what about non specific armies? Any prophetic mention of end time battle with any army?

Muhammad Rasheed - lol No. When He mentions the Day of Judgment, it's all about smashing the earth in a cataclysm, and then resurrecting us. The Qur'an is chock-full-of that. Graphically.

Muhammad Rasheed - He mentioned Gabriel blowing his horn though.

Dianne Hauser - Agree It will be a very dangerous mess if they let the illegal Muslims in before proper vetting.

Steamy Raimon - Let's start at the top.

Muhammad Rasheed - I think the situation is that you value the opinion of politicians and media pundits and base decisions on what they say.

Gary McCoy - Muhammad, I don't value anyone's opinion so much that I would kill for it.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol You value the opinion of politicians and media pundits enough to believe their word that we should continue to provoke people into war.

Gary McCoy - I don't know what people or what words to which you're referring. But I measure people carefully before I follow anything they say. What do you think about Obama provoking people into war by killing innocents with drone attacks?

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary McCoy wrote: "I don't know what people or what words to which you're referring."

1.) "Some politicians and media pundits tell us..."
2.) "But they then go on to tell us..."
3.) "SO, what they're actually saying is..."
4.) "Sounds like we need to..."

That sounds like you are tossed around willy-nilly by political talking heads, instead of measuring carefully anything.

Gary McCoy wrote: "What do you think about Obama provoking people into war by killing innocents with drone attacks?"

I think your phrasing also betrays your lack of measuring anything carefully. lol The drones represent a couple of things:

1.) Both partisan groups contribute to the Industrial Military Complex, but Democrats favor small fire teams with semi-precise strikes, while the GOP prefer to enrich all of their buddies by strutting out the full $10 billion a day war machine. The people pulling the triggers on the drones hitting the wrong folk were the same people pulling the triggers on the super guns that killed the wrong targets during the previous administration. They are either trigger happy crazy, or they just need more training.

2.) There was a full blown war going on when Obama took office. He wanted to shut the whole thing down and bring all of our troops home, but the top-ranked military advisers (and their CEO handlers) convinced him otherwise. So he felt that sending assassin drones would be the lesser evil over sending out more & more waves of American youth overseas.

Gary McCoy - Really? Obama listens to his top military advisers? That's news to me. I could name a half dozen or so that no longer have their jobs because of him.

Gary McCoy - You are the one claiming I listen to the media pundits. I never claimed I do. Read more carefully.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary McCoy wrote: "Really? Obama listens to his top military advisers? That's news to me."

They convinced him not to withdraw all of the troops the way he originally pushed. That was one of the things Petreaus was complaining about. I don't understand how you missed that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary McCoy wrote: "You are the one claiming I listen to the media pundits. I never claimed I do. Read more carefully."

lol Are you a "birther," Gary? Do you believe Obama is a Muslim who won't admit it? Do you believe he started this war in the middle east?

Gary McCoy - I don't understand how you missed the fact that Obama was advised to leave a larger contingency force behind in Iraq, but he ignored them. And that was a disastrous decision.

Muhammad Rasheed - Disastrous how? The west's empire building is the reason for all the strife in the first place. I still agree with his original goals and say bring all American troops home, and allow the areas to work themselves out to heal from all the interference. It won't be easy, and it will get uglier before it levels off, but at least we can get tour hands out of it...

...until the war-hungry GOP take over again, of course.

David Baldinger - I believe the "Arab world" was being referenced, not Muslim Americans.

Gary McCoy - By who, David?

David Baldinger - "Some politicians and media pundits..."

Mitchell Berger - You're missing the point. If you want someone to stick their neck out - to say something when they see something - which most people of any stripe are reluctant to do - then you don't demonize their entire group.

Gary McCoy - Sorry, Mitchell, but I call bunk on your premise. And you just made my point even stronger for me. If I suspected that someone I knew was stockpiling means of killing innocent citizen, especially children, I'd stand on their front porch with a bullhorn until police arrived. There's no justification for not doing so, even if your feelings are hurt because someone said mean things about your religion. Again, if we have people who would kill over insensitive "words", or look the other way while others do, then we don't want those people walking our streets. If I were in a Muslim country, I don't care how many mean things people were saying about Christians, I would never walk into an Eid Al-Adha party and start killing innocent people.

Gordon Campbell - And, Gary, as a Christian, if you knew of someone planning on doing so, you would be committing a sin against God by not reporting it! Can Muslims say the same?

Muhammad Rasheed - Of course. Fighting in the cause of Allah is prescribed to Muslims; if they refuse to do so, it would be a sin. What is God's cause? Protecting the innocent would definitely be included. Reporting wrong-doing is the least you should do.

Bahaar Husain - @Gary McCoy… Excellent point, we must keep in mind that these are not muslims who are killing innocent people. Not every Christian is a terrorist and not every Muslim is a terrorist. And not everyone becomes a terrorist. These so called extremists are downright terrorists and criminals. They are envious of our freedom and can't stand to see anyone happy. This is a war between good and evil. In the end, good always prevails.

Mitchell Berger - @Gary McCoy… you are not typical in any manner. When confronted with troubling information most people freeze, or disbelieve what they see. You would not get the NRA to agree that possessing a couple of AR-15s and thousands of rounds of ammunition, is in and of itself a suspicious activity. There's no evidence that anyone else other than Marquez knew about the pipe bombs.

Jim Singer - Truth wins Gary. Why was BHO's decision to leave Iraq the basis of the Caliphate? Because it is a natural law that pressure will fill a vacuum. Nineteen thirty three ought to give us a hint what happens when an you give an aggressor with no qualms of killing a chance to fill space. The Sudetenland should raise a flag. Much like the Third Reich and their goal of a thousand year empire, so is ISIS and their duty to kill in the cause of Allah. Ironically, today's Muslims are more alike the 12th Century Crusaders or Jews of 4000 years ago. Which culture is the aggressor? While there are many of the Judeo/Christian culture today who believe the Bible is the exact word of God, where are they butchering non-believers. They are not, unless personally threatened in which case butchery becomes self-defense. Let's f this culture does not aggressively fight back, the "moderate Muslim" will prevail. I think not.

Mitchell Berger - The fact that Bush tied Obama's hands by failing to get the status of forces agreement Obama would need in order to keep our troops in Iraq. There is virtually nothing going on in Iraq that isn't the result of Bush's monumental bungle. What's happening now, is exactly what Bush was warned of in 2003.

Gary McCoy - My gosh, what a weak leader you just admitted we have. I'll agree completely. Your argument would make sense if the facts, and Obama's own White house didn't refute it.

No, U.S. Troops Didn’t Have to Leave Iraq

Mitchell Berger - @Gary McCoy… An opinion piece from a conservative publication is proof of nothing. The idea that Iranian puppet Nouri al Maliki (a Bush pick) would ever let more than a token force of US troops remain in Iraq is laughable.

Gerry Harris - Mitchell your fat mouth isn't proof of anything either, other than you're an idiot.

Mitchell Berger - Gerry, quick, how many years did al Maliki spend in Iran? Who did he support in the Iran-Iraq war? When you look up the answers to those questions then maybe you can explain why Bush approved him to take over Iraq. History, try it.

Jim Singer - Mitchell Do you really believe BHO wanted a status of forces agreement? Abraham could have been the Iraqi leader and there would be no status of forces agreement. BMO is so arrogant he believes he can redefine human warfare where if one side goes home the other will not react. Speaking of history, when President Bush handed the keys over to Obama, Iraq was largely pacified. Obama's desire to "end the war" is the reason we will have to eventually clean up his mess. If we don't, expect more of your friends and neighbors to die in their homes and public places.

The Ole Switcheroo

Zodicus Zu'ul –


Muhammad Rasheed - Then why do you think you are still under capitalism? They vilified McCarthy, remember?

Zodicus Zu'ul - because the majority of the people are brainwashed into believing that "Capitalism Is Their Friend," to bother looking at what a world we actually live in.

Muhammad Rasheed - Who told you that capitalism isn't your friend? The folk that took your home, your savings, and forced you to labor eternally for meager wages with no voice in the system?

They were the folk that vilified Senator McCarthy.

Allyson Roberts Waller - Yes, you're making his point. No one has specifically said capitalism isn't our friend.

Those that stood for capitalism are now standing for corporate/governmental greed. Thank you for making this so accessible to us.

Muhammad Rasheed - Those that stood for capitalism were chased off. Those that remain are the marxist-communists and the greedy cartels of corporatists. Pockets of capitalism are rare, with the above groups circling over them like vultures ready to stamp them out or usurp them.

Zodicus Zu'ul - Senator McCarthy wasn't standing for Capitalism. he was trying to create a literal state of panic and fear. a scared populace is easily controlled and manipulated.

Muhammad Rasheed - Who told you that? What are you basing that on?

McCarthy's team was tasked to discover evidence that the US gov was infiltrated by members of the Democratic Communist Party. He did so. The worst of those cases was the stealing the Manhattan Project secrets by communist plants/infiltrators. The threat was real, and worse than what everyone thought, and Senator McCarthy found himself all alone in the end, with his original government sponsors having abandoned him as a scapegoat.

See Also:

McCarthy's War

A Sinister Long-Term Goal for America

TRICK QUESTION: Which Party Believes the Minimum Wage Decreases Unemployment?

Abdur Rasheed - Thomas Sowell wrote: “Minimum-wage laws are another issue where the words seem to carry great weight, leading to the fact-free assumption that such laws will cause wages to rise to the legally specified minimum. Various studies going back for decades indicate that minimum-wage laws create unemployment, especially among younger, less experienced, and less skilled workers.”

Let’s see using the ACTUAL NUMBERS…

Thomas Sowell wrote: “A discredited argument that first appeared back in 1946 recently surfaced again in a televised discussion of minimum wages. A recent survey of employers asked if they would fire workers if the minimum wage were raised. Two-thirds of the employers said that they would not. That was good enough for a minimum-wage advocate."

Discredited HOW? With a “SURVEY??”

You have got to be shitting me??

Why is it that EVERY TIME a Conservative doesn’t have the actual numbers and data on their side they quote a “SURVEY” of dumbass people and state it as a fact?

When the Owner of Papa John’s was asked how Obamacare would affect him he stated that he would be forced to raise his prices up to .14cents. Fox news ran that bullshit on a loop as an example of how Obamacare is destroying America and keeping people from getting extra cheese and shit.

Then he gave away 2 million pizzas for the Super bowl for free.

Then he sponsored a Mitt Romney fundraiser at his mansion.

Me: “Get that bullshit outta here!”

Then he raised his prices $3 and nobody batted an eye.

Papa Johns Pizza Prices... and Obamacare

Stop asking people with a political agenda what the fuck they think, Thomas! That’s why I don’t ask you shit.

Thomas Sowell wrote: “Unfortunately, the consequences of minimum-wage laws cannot be predicted on the basis of employers’ statements of their intentions. Nor can the consequences of a minimum-wage law be determined, even after the fact, by polling employers on what they did.

The problem with polls, in dealing with an empirical question like this, is that you can only poll survivors. Every surviving business in an industry might have as many employees as it had before a minimum-wage increase — and yet, if the additional labor costs led to fewer businesses’ surviving, there could still be a reduction in industry employment, despite what the poll results were from survivors."

Just so I’m getting this right… YOU JUST SIGHTED A SURVEY as proof and then you are discrediting surveys as proof??

Thomas Sowell wrote: “There are many other complications that make an empirical study of the effects of minimum wages much more difficult than it might seem.”

Yet here you are speaking out the side of your hole anyway.

DEEP.

Thomas Sowell wrote: “Since employment varies for many reasons other than a minimum-wage law, at any given time the effects of those other factors can outweigh the effects of minimum-wage laws. In that case, employment could go up after a particular minimum-wage increase — even if it goes up less than it would have without that increase.

Minimum-wage advocates can seize upon statistics collected in particular odd circumstances to declare that they have now “refuted” the “myth” that minimum wages cause unemployment.”

What are these “Odd circumstances?” Are these the circumstances that net in a result that you don’t agree with? Like, “It’s just a tiny little economic collapse of the entire financial market because I don’t like what the data says?”

If you take the unemployment rate year over year and compare those years with every time the minimum wage was raised and subtract economic recessions it will tell you definitively whether or not raising the minimum wage increases unemployment for young unskilled African Americans.

I have a 4.4% REDUCTION in African American Unemployment.

It’s not that hard if you’re honest.
Thomas Sowell wrote: “It is surely no coincidence that during the last administration in which there was no federal minimum wage — the Calvin Coolidge administration — unemployment ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent over its last four years. It is surely no coincidence that, when the federal minimum-wage law remained unchanged for twelve years while inflation rendered the law meaningless, the black teenage unemployment rate — even during the recession year of 1949 — was literally a fraction of what it has been throughout later years when the minimum-wage rate was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.”

So by THAT logic I guess it’s no coincidence that 12 years before there was a minimum wage law the unemployment rate was as high as 17.3 percent.

Cherry picking certain years of data and sighting it as a point in order to skew the data to prove your point is a little dishonest is it not?

Thomas Sowell wrote: “When words trump facts, you can believe anything. And the liberal groupthink taught in our schools and colleges is the path of least resistance.”

When cherry picked “data” comes out of an Uncle Tommy…

Muhammad Rasheed - "The economic analysis which concludes that minimum wages increase the unemployment of low-wage workers rests essentially on the belief that labor is no exception to the general rule that less is demanded at a higher price than at a lower price. Attempts to overturn this basic economic principle usually reduce to one of four assumptions or assertions: (1) there is a fixed number of workers demanded, more or less without regard to wage rates; (2) low-wage workers are victims of employer l monopoly power rather than low productivity, so that raising their wage rates will not price them beyond their value to the employer and therefore will not price them out of a job; (3) higher wage rates will cause employers to use labor more efficiently, so that workers will then become more valuable, and so will not lose their jobs; and (4) the increased "purchasing power" caused by higher minimum wages will lead to a greater demand for goods, and therefore a greater demand for labor, offsetting any tendency towards unemployment. These arguments will be examined in order." ~ Thomas Sowell, Minimum Wage Escalation

Abdur Rasheed - So no thoughts of your own?

When did my brother turn into Kirby?

Instead of giving YOUR opinion you just quote quote somebody with an obvious political agenda? I'm surprized that you haven's started just replying with youtube clips of Alonso or Whittle.

Can YOU give me an example using say McDonalds?

Abdur Rasheed - It seems that the sole purpose of Thomas Sowell is to try and justify Conservative talking points with cherry picked data and pro corporate theories.

It's depresing to watch.

Whenever you find yourself willfully ignoring facts that are right in your face in favor of a theory it simply because you NEED to believe in the theory at all costs...it makes you look bad.

"There has been not ONE economic down turn, recession, or depression while were on the gold standard!"

Thats' not true. Here are 8 more not including "The Great Depression!"

"Well...those were minor."

or

"Minimum wages increase the unemployment of low-wage workers."

That's not true. Here are the ACTUAL numbers and it CLEARY shows that after ALL minimum wage increases from the last 40 years has led to a REDUCTION in low wage unemployment by 4.4%.

That's not ME talking out of my ass. That's what the data says.

If it said that the man was RIGHT I would say so. I don't work for a Conservative Foundation with a political agenda.

Conservatives don't pay me to justify their bullshit talking points.

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "So no thoughts of your own?"

lol Ironically, I have lots of thoughts of my own, that you routinely sidestep in favor of the GOP talking point caricature Muhammad you prefer to argue with ("You can't argue BOTH sides, Muhammad!") Other debate opponents have referred to my own opinions and analysis as "MRasheed-ism," including Neil P. In fact, that was the point of my "libertarian versus Libertarian" rant that you referenced above. I spent that entire thread fleshing out my personal theory, while you INSISTED I was merely regurgitating the thoughts of a 'guru.' Suddenly you want to actually hear my opinions, eh? Forgive me if I feel a pang of skepticism.

"Well...those were minor" was not my argument. The Great Depression bubble was something very different than that represented by the "panics" that happened in the pre-Federal Reserve Act era. Of course you completely ignored my actual argument in favor of the argument you wanted to give me so you could attack that. You keep doing it so I'll assume it's just easier. You're busy after-all, so it's understandable. Unfortunately I have to be the casualty of your lazy and dismissive argument style. I can't just casually have a discussion about something of interest -- challenging a contention not you -- without you making it a personal attack from the caricature Muhammad, because you need me to be Grimskill, Flex Hectic!, & Kirby in order to use your 'one-size-fits-all' argument kit. You refuse to adjust the kit to have a spirited discussion with your brother, therefore I have to be the enemy, too. lol It's cool though. If we do it often enough, I'll get to develop a specific style for these MRasheed/A-Rah convos. It'll be fun.

Both Sowell and you pointed out that the more narrowly focused relevant data needed was missing, so arguments had to be formulated from other areas, which you both did. You decided to draw left-leaning talking point specific, narrowly detailed conclusions from the wider range of general data, while Sowell decided to draw his conclusions from mostly economic principles and sourced academic studies. Between the two, your conclusions made the least sense.

Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Instead of giving YOUR opinion you just quote quote somebody"

Well, you used this status post, not to refute his Townhall column soundbite, but just to make fun of it. I thought I'd help you out by posting the original meatier paper he wrote on the topic, since you found that one to be too light & fluffy. I fail to see what my opinion had to do with it since this post is all about you versus Sowell, right?

Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: "Well, you used this status post, not to refute his Townhall column sound bite, but just to make fun of it."

Lol

So I would think that would sound like me just repeating what he said in a funny/sarcastic voice.

Thomas Sowell wrote a long and lengthy explanation of his theory regarding how raising the minimum wage increased unemployment among unskilled African Americans.

It sounded cool...until you pulled the actual data and compared it.

Either he was right or he was wrong.

He was wrong as fuck.

Raising the minimum wage showed a 4.4% REDUCTION in African American unemployment.

It's like he didn't even try to be honest.

Once I see that he was just lying I just lumped him into the Neil P bag and called him an UncleTom.

I ALWAYS look for the TRUTH.

As I said, "I don't get paid to justify talking points."

Either it IS or it AIN'T true.

You seem to just look for a way to prove the MAN right and you seem genuinely disinterested in the truth.

"I'm just going to believe him."

You do that.

Rah

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "It sounded cool...until you pulled the data and compared it."

Okay, but that's not what happened. You were able to pull the wide ranging data, which included all demographics over a vast timeline, without being able to isolate the specific data set needed to confirm or refute the topic's contentions. He went the route of comparing it to the basic economic principles of his forte', while you called him names and pointed and laughed.

Considering the quality of info you both provided, siding with his stance is a no-brainer to me.

Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: "Okay, but that's not what happened."

No??

Muhammad wrote: "You were able to pull the wide ranging data which included all demographics over a vast timeline, without being able to isolate the specific data needed to confirm or refute the topics contentions."

Who told you that??

I specifically asked you what data did you think was necessary to prove or disprove Sowell's theory. I had already pulled the data.

African American unemployment rate correlated with the years that the minimum wage was increased.

Is that NOT what we're talking about?

Where did you get that other broad scope data bullshit from?

See, you NEED him to be right at all costs.

I NEED to know the TRUTH.

Btw a "no brainer" isn't supposed to mean that you don't want to use your brain.

Muhammad Rasheed - Aren't you the one that pointed out that the demographics from that gov dept weren't split along racial lines until 1971? In Sowell's paper he also pointed out that specific data weren't available during the relevant time period, so all you can do is look at this wide 1948-2015 timeline of info dump and guess at whether the minimum wage did what you need it to have done to the people you wanted it to affect, and then proclaim that guess as a false truth.

You're bluffing. I'm not biting.

Abdur Rasheed - Uuuuum NO!

The government didn't split the data along racial lines until 1971.

Soooooo I used the data that is verified and available from 1971 until NOW because accuracy is important for what I believe.

If Sowell jumbled the data from 1948 then he is even more full of shit than I thought.

The data from 1971 that I used is a sample of 44 years worth of information and PLENTY ENOUGH to prove or disprove Sowell's theory.

From 1971 until 2015 African American Unemployment decreased every time the minimum wage was increased by a net total of 4.4%.

Look for YOURSELF and bite on that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Uuuuum NO!"

Uuuuum YES!

Muhammad Rasheed - Is it really accurate to proclaim that minimum wage increases were responsible for that 4.4% drop? Of course not. What else was going on in the country that could have directly affected the unemployment drop realistically?

Let's dig... [holding]

Muhammad Rasheed - History of the Federal Minimum Wage according to the US Department of Labor - Wage & Hour Division:

In 1974 the minimum wage went up to 2.00 from 1968's 1.60.

In 1975 it went up to 2.10

In 1976 it went up to 2.30

In 1978 it went up to 2.65
In 1979 it went up to 2.90

In 1980 it went up to 3.10

In 1981 it went up to 3.35

In 1990 it went up to 3.80

In 1991 it went up to 4.25

In 1996 it went up to 4.75

In 1997 it went up to 5.15

In 2007 it went up to 5.85

In 2008 it went up to 6.55
In 2009 it went up to 7.25

************

Jimmy Carter is the one that raised it from 1.60 to 3.35.

George H. W. Bush is the one that raised it from 3.35 to 4.25.

Bill Clinton is the one that raised it from 4.25 to 5.15.

George W. Bush is the one that raised it from 5.15 to 6.55.

Barack Obama is the one that raised it from 6.55 to 7.25.

Muhammad Rasheed - During the terms of the two Bush presidents, there were wars going on. In fact, they were shoving poor black youth into the recruitment trucks by the neighborhood full. "War machine cannon fodder" is as legit a job title as any other I'd wager... could that alone be responsible for a good chunk of that 4.4% dip?

Maybe. What else do we have...

Muhammad Rasheed - The National Bureau of Economic Research sets Jun 2009 as the official end date of the Great Recession, and Obama increased the minimum wage the very next month. "YAAYY!! Wages are higher! Let's get these kids in here working... STAT!" Is that realistic? I think it does help boost the fiat economy, because it helps reverse [slightly] the effects of inflation, elevating the USD purchasing power for a minute, but is that WHY the black youth started working?

**********

From Wiki -
(1) The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 [...] was a stimulus package [...] signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama. To respond to the Great Recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. [...] The Act included direct spending [...] The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory, which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.

Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad Rasheed wrote: "During the terms of the two Bush presidents, there were wars going on. In fact, they were shoving poor black youth into the recruitment trucks by the neighborhood full. "War machine cannon fodder" is as legit a job title as any other I'd wager... could that alone be responsible for a good chunk of that 4.4% dip?

Maybe. What else do we have..."

If you were ACTUALLY interested in the TRUTH and not just proving Sowell right you would have looked up the answer and not ASSUMED the answer.

"Military personnel are also automatically relegated to not in labor force status. This segment of the population is excluded from the civilian labor force because military personnel are not considered as resources available for productive activity. Moreover, the military operates under its own set of "employment" rules, apart from resource and labor markets that exist in the rest of the economy. The reasoning behind excluding this segment is perhaps most obvious during periods of rising and declining military activity (that is, during and immediately after wars). If military personnel are included in the labor force, then a major movement of civilians into the military has no apparent affect on the labor resources available for productive activity, when in fact, the quantity of labor available for domestic production declines."

So "No" the military didn't count in the labor force numbers.

Muhammad Rasheed - So if the poor black youth being shipped off overseas aren't counted, then who are the poor black youth who didn't go to war, but became employed?

Did they go the other route, and get their education, and work a minimum wage job busting their asses to improve their quality of life, while hearing reports of their best friends dying in Bush wars...?

Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: "So if the poor black youth being shipped off overseas aren't counted, then who are the poor black youth who didn't go to war, but became employed?"

The ones who didn't join the military and got a job.

The answer was kinda baked in the cake right there.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol The point was it the newly increased minimum wage that made them get a job, or were they already in school, and used the war time scare to knuckle down, went out and got a job to focus? Did college job money in the form of grants increase with the minimum wage?

Abdur Rasheed - I think thast these are all good questions for you to research and answer before you jump on the Sowell bandwagon.

There's nothing wrong with double checking people. Even people that you might respect and look up too.

Muhammad Rasheed - I think these are all areas to explore before we all decide that the partisan popular variable "minumum wage increases reduce unemployment" is the only valid one.

Abdur Rasheed - lol

You weren't that interested in fact checking Sowell. lol

Now you're like, "Lets slow down everybody before we all start jumping to comclusions and shit about my boy being wrong!"

smh

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Well, if you want to go there, in that MWE article I posted for you, he said there were numerous variables that affect unemployment. As you know, I trust his scholarship on that, so I'm more inclined to be open to other variables being present AND more meaningful, than take your popular talking point seriously at face value. The President's stimulus package and how it functioned, what its purpose was, and its timing pounded that nail home for me. Economic bubbles rise all the time. Did the other minimum wage hikes link up to "spend, Spend, SPEND!" jiggling as well?

At this point I think the ONLY reason they were increasing the minimum wage was to offset inflation. It had nothing to do with the unemployment, you just think that way because it's a leftist talking point and on your radar.

Abdur Rasheed - Sounds good.

The problem with your need to stick me in a "leftest box" and dismiss me is that I never quoted a talking point like Sowell did, "The economic analysis which concludes that minimum wages increase the unemployment of low-wage workers"

I just got the actual numbers and crunched them.

No "talking point" needed from me.

Just the facts, Sir!

Just because the facts don't line up with Sowell's theory isn't my concern.

It SHOULD BE a concern of yours if you are going to just blindly follow the man.

You got offended at the thought of simply fact checking one of his points.

ANYWAY
There is a driving motivation behind wanting to keep the minimum wage low or get rid of it all together.

Employees are the largest cost of a business.

MY payroll is about $120,000 a MONTH (labor, overtime, holiday pay and fringe benefits)

If you look at that amount on a P&L sheet every month with the year to date totals its easy for an executive to look at that as an easy was to increse profits by reducing head count.

Conservative speak against the minimum wage because their republican donars and PACS are the businesses.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Sowell's job is to try and justify the Conservative talking point against the minimum wage despite the FACTS.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't have a need to stick you in a leftist box. But you are trumpeting a pet liberal belief, and upholding it on flimsy evidence. The facts AREN'T proving that the minimum wage hike lowered unemployment. Your "crunching" deliberately ignored any other variables, and you even proclaimed they didn't matter because you thought you saw what you wanted to see absent any actual analysis of the data. "This is doing that, that is doing that, all of this doesn't matter... I WIN!" That's not "facts." His "economic analysis" you dismissed actually does speak better to what the data showed since he wisely isn't of the opinion to dismiss other variables, which wouldn't make since anyway for someone only interested in facts and truth. That person should be driven to determine what influence the other variables actually have when compared to the easy popular partisan belief point so he can definitively KNOW what is fact or not. The president signed into effect an AGGRESSIVE "get jobs started NOW!" stimulus package, and along the way he went ahead and increased the minimum wage. If what you believe is true, why didn't he do that first? Why didn't increasing the minimum wage sit proudly on top of the stimulus package as its most potent "driving force" component?

The left may not use "talking points" in the strict way the GOP folk do, but they have their favored political beliefs just like their rivals.

Abdur Rasheed - So because you don't like the "facts" you just reject them?

Cool.

First you wouldn't even LOOK at any information.

Muhammad: "He's brilliant and I have no need to doubt him and I don't want to fact check every single thing that he has ever done ever!"

Me: "Well how about this one thing?"

Muhammad: "NO!"

Me: "Here are the numbers that I came up with. Look for yourself. It looks like your boy is one some bullshit!"

Muhammad: "Well you must have included ALL of the general data and not just the African American data so i'm sticking with my hero, nah!"

Me: "Why would you assume that? I think that "Nah" was uncalled for, but whatever. I ONLY focused on the data availible within the parameters of our conversation. I wasnt trying to prove your hero wrong. I just want to know the truth. The facts just don't support his bullshit."

Muhammad: "Well your data must have included the military numbers. [plugs ears} LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!

Me" No my numbers don't include the military numbers."

Muhammad: "W...well....YOU'RE A LEFIST!!!!!"

Me: "I would be a goddamn Klansman if the data support it. It doesn't make ME wrong. His claim is either true or its NOT. Sorry Bro...it's NOT. Your boy is full of shit. You KNOW that he has a political agenda yet you are desperatly trying to dismiss the actual data because ehe said so. The differnce between Sowell and Me is that he's telling you to believe HIM because "come on dawg you know how liberals are" and I'm telling you to look up the data for YOURSELF."

Only ONE of us is trying to bullshit you.

It ain't the good looking one.

Rah

Abdur Rasheed – Carly Fiorina: Raising the Minimum Wage Will Lead to ‘Less Opportunity’

Abdur Rasheed – Trump defends minimum wage comments

Abdur Rasheed – Ben Carson said raising the minimum wage will increase joblessness

Abdur Rasheed – Sen. Cruz: Minimum Wage Hike Would Cost Jobs for Young People, Hispanics, African Americans

Abdur Rasheed – Romney on the Minimum Wage

Abdur Rasheed – Paul claimed that raising the minimum wage hurts “minorities and kids.”

Abdur Rasheed - Because raising the minimum wage ISN'T the best way to raise people's pay! People need tax reform and less government regulations.

Smmfh

GOP Candidates Resoundingly Reject The Idea Of A Minimum Wage Hike

Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: "I don't have a need to stick you in a leftist box. But YOU are trumpeting a pet liberal belief, and upholding it on flimsy evidence."

Am I now???

Lol

You keep trying to separate Sowell's tripe from his politics and accuse ME of using talking points at the same time.

Amazing!

Muhammad Rasheed - Sowell is an economist. He only 'politics' from the arms of his living room couch, such as it is. What the GOP talking heads do with his writings, or how they choose to interpret/express them, IS separate from Sowell.

Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Am I now???"

Yes.

[From Wiki] "Carter's tenure was a time of continuing inflation and recession." This helps support my theory that minimum wages are increased as a tool to offset inflation... not to lower unemployment. My dislike of the fiat debt culture system under the Fed is why I disagree with Dr. Sowell over the need to keep increasing the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation. If we're going to be in it, then at least we can make it fair. As fair as possible anyway.

Tell me how do you think the minimum wage hikes directly affect unemployment, please.

Abdur Rasheed - That was never the question Muhammad.

I never write a book and an article and get worshiped as if I wrote volume 2 of the Holy Quran.

Sowell said that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment of low wage workers.

You would do better asking Sowell what corner of his colon he pulled his data from, because the facts don't support his tripe.

I can tell you definitively that raising the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment for minorities.

Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: "Is it really accurate to proclaim that minimum wage increases were responsible for that 4.4% drop? Of course not. What else was going on in the country that could have directly affected the unemployment drop realistically?

Let's dig... [holding]"

Sowell's theory is that a minimum wage increase INCREASES unskilled unemployment for African Americans.

The FACT that it actually decreased when the minimum wage increased and the variables behind it doesn't matter.

What matters is if Sowells theory is factual or not.

If African American unemployment had actually went UP like Sowell said by 4.4% you would have been like, "SEE!!!!!! That's why he's my hero!"

The fact that he was wrong now you're like, "Must be the black kids who joined the military because my hero is never wrong. He wrote a book and everything!"

Muhammad Rasheed - The fact that there are many other variables that affect unemployment, including aggressive job creation stimulus packages, and other items put into place by the leader of the free world, absolutely does matter. How do you know the minimum wage is what did it when it alone wasn't the only variable involved? Why are you so positive that the minimum wage was the only variable that mattered?

Abdur Rasheed - I removed the recessions and the stimulus and got a gain of 4.4%.

If I DIDN'T get a gain and netted ZERO Sowell would still be wrong. Because that's still NOT an increase in African American Unemployment.

I didn't have to prove that Unemployment was reduced. It just is what it is.
Abdur Rasheed - Track National Unemployment, Job Gains and Job Losses

Abdur Rasheed - You quoting Sowell's books and articles on this stuff when everything he wrote on the subject is based on a pro corporate LIE.

Even if there are other variables which makes it impossible to say wether the increase in the minimum wage caused african american employment to go down like the raw data suggests...it SURE AS SHIT DIDN'T CAUSE IT TO GO UP!!

Muhammad Rasheed - That's not a real argument. Quit.

Abdur Rasheed - No?

If Sowell said and wrote that, "Minimum wages increase the unemployment of low-wage workers"

Then it's either true or its NOT, right?

The burden ISN'T to prove that the Unemployment rates went DOWN.

THAT is the very argument that we have been going back and forth over.

Does the unemployment rate for low wage workers increase as the minimum wage increases or NOT??

The minimum wage has increased 14 times in the last 44 years as you have pointed out.

From the department of Labor and Statistics data sorted under the following parameters

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS14000006

Seasonally Adjusted

Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American

Labor force status: Unemployment rate

Type of data: Percent or rate

Age: 16 years and over

Race: Black or African American

Years: 1972 to 2015

I removed the recessions because obviously that would skew the data because the unemployment sky rocket for everybody across the board and that isn't a true representation of the facts.

I ran the numbers with and without the recessions.

We have had 6 recessions since 1973.

The total unemployment rate during the 6 recessions netted a unemployment GAIN of 17.1 percent during and after the periods after the raise in the minimum wage.

Not including the recessions netted a LOSS of -4.9%.

Muhammad Rasheed - So you removed the recessions, but had to leave the minimum wage hikes since that's what we're looking for. But the minimum wage was hiked as a part of the strategy for dealing with the recessions...? Help me out here.

Abdur Rasheed - The recessions were for certain months. I ran the numbers with and without those months.

Help you out???

If you really gave a shit then you would have done it yourself.

You're going to fact check ME though, huh?

Smdh

Muhammad Rasheed - Did the minimum wage increases match with those months?

Abdur Rasheed - You didn't get the spread sheet that I sent?

Muhammad Rasheed - In this thread? Or the carter meme one?

Abdur Rasheed - The recessions lasted months (a few were a year and a few months.)

The minimum wage increases lasted for years.

It wasn't difficult at all.

Abdur Rasheed - E-mail

I can't send an excel file on Facebook.

Muhammad Rasheed - Here, check this out:



Muhammad Rasheed - Keeping wages low isn't helping the workers, of course. The minimum wage was hiked up to offset inflation, and enable those now lowered wages to have a bit more purchasing power.

Sure the increases lasted for years, but they were put in place initially as a counter-balance for something specific... not unemployment itself. As the economy improved over those years, and businesses did better and were able to hire more workers, they did so. Why are they assuming it was the minimum wage increases itself that did it?

My issue right now is figuring out the reason why people have been saying that the minimum wage does improve unemployment. Who is the first person to suggest it?

Abdur Rasheed - You are.

I never said it and yet you keep asking me.

I KEEP saying that the republican talking point isn't supported by the actual data.

Muhammad Rasheed - I meant improve it. That increasing the minimum wage cures unemployment. The GOP talking heads said it doesn't.

Abdur Rasheed - They are only are speaking against the minimum wage. No one ever said that it cured unemployment.

There was no counter argument pendulum swing.

Only that they are WRONG and raising the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment and the data doesn't support the GOP talking point. .

Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "There was no counter argument pendulum swing."

Oh. Hm.

Muhammad Rasheed - (i wasn't really expecting that. lol)

Abdur Rasheed - That's because you weren't listening to me.

Muhammad Rasheed ...

Muhammad Rasheed - (now i have to regroup)

Abdur Rasheed - Did Sowell say that was the counter argument and I missed it?

Everything that I read that you posted was just him justifying the GOP talking point and not saying that there was a counter swing.

He was just trying to prove that raising the minimum wage was a bad idea for low skilled workers.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's clearly a good idea for low-skilled workers, because if the tiny bit of money they do make doesn't have enough purchasing power to by basic necessities, then what the eff are they working for? Practice?

Muhammad Rasheed - I just assumed there was a mirror image opposite because... well...

...partisan stuff.

Muhammad Rasheed - MY BAD!!!

Abdur Rasheed - Did you get the spreadsheet?

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes. I grabbed the original one out of the Junk/HAZMAT folder.

Abdur Rasheed - I highlighted the recession months in yellow and ran the runners with and without.

The first time i didn't take the time to pull out only the recession months and it gave me an average of 4.4% reduction.

This time I took the time to pull out only the individual months of recessions to make it more accurate and got an unemployment reduction of 4.9%.

I can definitively say that it didn't increase.

Abdur Rasheed - Numbers don't lie.

Muhammad Rasheed - This is all your fault anyway. I just came to challenge the Carter Meme....

Wait... Were Cain & Abel an Item...?!

Tom Luth – 


Tom Luth – hmmm... There is something here I seem to be missing...
Michael S Hall - Scary thought.
Grant Keller - To make it worse, one son killed the other.
Tom Luth - The first disfunctional family.
Edwin Cate - Sorry, but Adam and Eve had more children than just Cain and Abel. Check it out! It's in Genesis.
Tom Luth - And Seth, I recall...
Rick Araluce - People were "different" then.
Britt Wisenbaker - Actually, popular genetic science discoveries support the notion that mankind is descended from a single maternal ancestor, so the bible account is only uncomfortable to think about, not necessarily contrary to scientific consensus. The implication that Adam and Eve only had two male heirs is not from the bible.
Stefan Avalos - Mitochondrial Eve... but still different than bible Eve.
Muhammad Rasheed - ^How?
Aaron Kashtan - "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4). 
According to Jewish tradition, Cain and Abel married their twin sisters.
John Mark Sappenfield - But tradition doesn't mean it's correct or true.
Aaron Kashtan - No, of course not. I'm just saying people have been aware of the problem of Cain and Abel's wives since ancient times.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol It's more "correct and true" than the weird disbeliever notion that they ONLY had Cain and Abel.
Danny Ray Barnes - Mother, daughter, whatever. There were no other women other than immediate family.
Muhammad Rasheed - So?
Forbidding incest when there are only a few dozen humans on the planet wouldn't make a lick of sense. When the population had grown sufficiently to allow it, then He commanded them to not touch close relatives.
Danny Ray Barnes - Notwithstanding, the point of the meme is valid even with the implied snide comment.
Danny Ray Barnes - It really doesn't matter to me, it's all word play, imo. I put no truck in it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Danny, the point of the meme is not valid considering only the disbeliever jumped to the unreasonable and absurd conclusion that Adam & Eve only sired two male children. The point of that story was that the one brother's offering was received over the other brother's because of their attitude in the giving. There was no reason to go into what their home lives looked like. Much irrelevant material was left out of the story, yet the meme creator felt he knew all that he needed to know in order to make his assumption.
Danny Ray Barnes - I understand your POV, and respect it as genuine and thoughtful. They say you can't change anyone's mind in fb, but you have caused me to look deeper at the INTENT of the meme, and I agree it was to make the story sound creepy at best by omitting, intentionally or not, some detail. My main point was that it's still creepy, for those sensitive in that way, no matter if the brothers mated with their mother or their sisters.
You say the biblical rules on incest changed at some point and that seems typical to me, no matter that this particular rule change seems necessary, in the Bible. Your God does not appear to be as unchanging as presented.
Let me add that you seem like a good guy, Muhammad, and I appreciate having a civil conversation on religion for a change. We atheists don't get that from believers often, no matter if we ourselves are civil or not.
Danny Ray Barnes - Merry whatever, brother.

M. Rasheed's Morning Ritual Confession

Muhammad Rasheed - Every morning, when I first turn on the shower hot water, I repeat this line from Incredible Hulk #267.

Muhammad Rasheed - When hot water hits me:  "ARRRRGGGHHH!! Betty lied!! Machine hurts Hulk!!!"