not at all; equal protection of the law is all that is required to solve simple poverty in our Republic. You obviously have nothing to contribute, currently. Why do you believe any capital economy would have problems, with "full employment of resources" in the market for labor, such that Labor has recourse to unemployment compensation as an alternative to welfare, simply for being unemployed?
Equal protection of the law? Meaning what exactly? You throw out nonsensical comments and tag on "solving simple poverty". It has no merit at all. We have had periods of full employment. Genuine full employment and not that right wing NRU garbage you misapplied. Did we have zero poverty? Nope. Talking about unemployment benefit when there is full employment does have the stench of guff to it.
What about a moral perspective where right wingers actually have the moral high ground, and can actually inform Persons to get a job, if they don't want to stay poor on an at-will basis, even with Any natural rate of unemployment.
There's no moral position from artificially creating a NRU measure. It is ideological drivel. Should there be full employment? Of course. It is unlikely in capitalism mind you. The reserve army is crucial for controlling worker bargaining power such that economic rents are maintained.
The law is going to solve poverty? Heard that one before. In all of human history the law has never solved poverty once. Grow up. You can't solve poverty because poverty is a relative concept. The richer we all get, the greater the gap between the richest and poorest gets. The more you solve it, the worse it gets. It's all relative, man.
it is about socialism merely using capitalism, for all of its, capital worth in modern times. A Pareto Optimality? Simply "increasing the market share of paying market participants", must be Good and not Bad, for Any economy.
nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric? poverty is not relative, it is officially defined in our Republic; being poor is relative. it makes, all of the difference in the whole and entire world. There is a simple solution to simple poverty; the right wing doesn't like it, Because the poor may benefit.
Socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. You're not saying anything. Of course if we don't have full employment we cannot have efficiency. Capitalism, however, can never achieve efficiency. It always has a form of unemployment (be it traditional unemployment or underemployment created through hierarchical practices)
Not in modern times. Government is socialism and must engender conditions for capitalism to flourish, in the name of the general welfare, for our Republic. Simply "increasing the market share of paying market participants", must be Good and not Bad, for Any economy. all that should be required, is to apply for unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State.
The idea of government as socialist is a corruption of the economic spectrum. Its typically used by right wingers. Note that you also used NRU right winger guff too....
I love how you fellows think the American English dictionary means you don't have to talk with resemblance of knowledge. The economic spectrum has been abused by right wing grunt for yonks (i.e. the notion that government means socialism). You do love right wing argument!
Why do you believe any local economy would be worse off, if Labor can simply apply for unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed?
Why do you think you're making meaningful comment? I have nothing against, for example, a basic income guarantee. You've simply dressed up a minor argument with right wing concepts to try and pretend something bigger than it really is.
It is officially defined in your republic using relative terms. You have poverty as compared to the national median. Or as compared to your national social expectations. Your poor are rich compared to Somali's. They are not living in poverty at all. In my country you can be "officially living in poverty" and also a 5%er globally. Go figure. In my country I am "officially living in extreme poverty". The very bottom of the social strata. I'm not feeling it myself. I live in a mansion. The right wingers, produce. This is what creates wealth.. The left wingers consume. This is what creates poverty. When a lefty cries "poverty" it just means he doesn't want to be socially productive. Prefers to make his living guilt tripping the socially productive.
We could have solved simple poverty, Yesterday. The right wing doesn't like it, Because the poor may benefit.
Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. Poor is "more relative than a fixed Standard for poverty." The right wing is so full of fallacy, even promiscuous women seem conservative, by comparison.
That just isn't true. Even a switch to a basic income guarantee won't solve poverty, given heterogeneous needs and policy constraints. You'd also need, st the very least, a radical overhaul of the economy and elimination of pre-welfare income inequalities
Yes, it would solve simple poverty; and, You cannot explain the process by which it would not work to solve simple poverty. We can assume that all employed persons have an income. Anyone who is unemployed, should have recourse to unemployment compensation (for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment). The rest would still be covered under existing welfare programs.
Poverty is relative. You can't get rid of it. Just as fast is relative to slow, rich is relative to poor. You can't have one without the other. Distribution curves (the bell curve) work in such a way that if you increase the median, the gap between the two extremes widens. So the wealthier our society gets, the greater the difference between the rich and poor appears. Even if all of us have got richer. Which we have. Lefty's don't take the right seriously about economics, because if they ever did, they would have to become a productive member of society and that is a real arse. It's easier, psychologically, to believe that the game is rigged against me, than that I suck. My self image after all, is that I am superior to others. By and large however those with more, merit it.
I already have. How do you think poverty is calculated? The standard practice is to use an equivalence scale (which tries to adjust income according to household needs). People are often poor l, not because of low income, but because of high needs. This is also the main reason for why minimum wages are ineffective in poverty alleviation. We then have to factor in pre-welfare income and wealth distributions. A basic income guarantee, given tax evasion and dodging, either has to set the minimum low or introduce damaging high marginal rates of tax. Simply put, unless there is already high levels of equality, the chances of solving poverty ate nil.
Poor is relative; poverty is a fixed weight and measure in our Republic. Starting off with a fallacy of false Cause, is Your problem.
We are not referring to poor, but poverty; we must distinguish. Simply having recourse to an income, eliminates simple poverty in our (capital) Republic. Anyone can stay poor on an at-will basis for as long as they want, or learn new things and obtain a better income.