A Replacement for Minimum Wage and Unemployment Benefits

Nonsense. You're referring to every type of factor of production being skewed towards the public sector.

Productivity of the public sector, except in terms of public good provision, tends to be significantly lower than private sector. You will undoubtedly significantly reduce the productivity rate of the economy.

The private sector operates according to market forces. You have nothing like that here. As I said, even Stalinism was more advanced as it at least adopted material balances (as a means to improve on economic planning)

Food? So you're going to steal production opportunity from the private sector. Military equipment? That has been found to lead to even more acute crowding out problems (accentuated by the economies of scale issues known to exist in arms production). Pick up garbage? So you're actually talking about creating fake jobs that do not add to overall production.

No it won't. The increase in allocative and production inefficiencies will assuredly lead to GDP reductions.

No I'm not. I'm referring to how capitalism and unemployment goes hand in hand. I'm advertising that your position is based on a complete lack of understanding of how labour markets operate. This ensures that you haven't factored in the costs associated with the policy folly that you subscribe to.

 

Supply is not cost.

You are using very old theories of value, rooted in the cost theory of value (once the leading free market theory of value) but it has been debunked by the theory of marginal utility and subjective value. The costs of production have nothing to do with the value of a final product. If the costs of production are higher than the price for the consumer good could make on the market, the good will not be produced.

No. Capital includes labor, equipment, machines, time, and everything that goes into production. Taxation removes funds from the economy that could be used to provide capital or purchase final goods.

Government spending does not help the economy, it only shifts money around. Giving to one group instead of the other. Furthermore, since government has an unlimited supply of funds, it has no profit motive, so it can spend money in ways that nobody would actually demand it be spent (there are plenty examples of this). On top of that, government does not have to meet consumer demand. Government does not produce. It merely takes money from people (instantly making them worse off) and gives it to someone else. Government spending is not government production, merely government demand to produce something other than what people have shown to want.

If you don't put it all in at once, inflation will just be slower. But the upward pressure on prices is there no matter what you do if you increase the supply of money in circulation.

Give me an example of when government buys capital with taxes, and how government purchase of capital has ever caused good economic results.

Consumes what good? Government just takes the money. Taxation is no more economically beneficial than if a bankrobber stole money and spent it in some other way.

you are saying is that government should create wealth by creating more money to finance jobs. Your idea is not new, and it has been tried. It never works. More money just means upward pressure on prices and downward pressure on real wages.

 

You continue to make very ignorant statements. In standard analysis marginal cost provides the supply schedule

Nonsense again. The fellow is simply making guesses. You, however, have shown ignorance of actual pricing policy when you failed to understand that cost-plus pricing is the norm

Ignorant again! Government spending in capitalism is vital. Capitalism is inherently unstable and government ensures the reproduction of capitalist profit.

On the bright side, you're at least consistent!

 

alright, you've sold me on the problems with this plan, but I am not giving up! I have a new idea: Government sponsored private sector jobs. which I will title: "Government sponsored jobs". I also greatly appreciate your criticism. Please continue this in my next thread.

 

Alright, Reiver won this discussion. but I have other ideas to close the 9% unemployment rate. look for the new "government sponsored jobs" thread I'm going to make.

 

Ok, the new plan (I'm calling it a program now, think that's a better name) is up so please give me your feedback! titled "Government Sponsored Jobs Program"

No one bother with this thread anymore, please.

 

Are you implying that illegal immigration is actually helping deflate any inflation?

 

The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our republic, to solve simple poverty when due to structural forms of unemployment.

We could be more rational about it, and have that compensation for (capitalism's natural rate of unemployment), compete less favorably by one dollar an hour equivalent, to an historical work ethic from the Age of Iron.

 

anyone know what this crazy liberal is trying to say??

 

that socialism merely and Only requires, social morals for free, dear.

 

more gibberish, anyone know what the liberal is trying to say?

 

that only those sadly lacking in social morals for free, don't understand it, dear.

 

got it!!! social morals for free!!! I just don't understand liberal gibberish sorry. Anybody know what the lib is tying to say???

 

That we could be solving simple poverty and capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment, by merely "harnessing" socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual; via the legal concept of employment at will, and unemployment compensation that pays out simply for being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

That way, we can let Right to Work States experiment with lowering their taxes by simply hiring anyone that applies.

 

got it!!! social morals for free!!! I just don't understand liberal gibberish sorry. Anybody know what the lib is tying to say???

 

that we could be lowering our tax burden through social morals for free.

 

I think they are saying that if the government seized everything, they could use that everything to create jobs for people, but I am not sure. Just call em a commie bastard and get on with it.

 

nothing but right wing, Orwellian fantasy from the right; i got it.

 

I think you may have seriously overlooked how an economy works.

Your plan is unworkable because a market-economy not only sells goods/services but it exchanges revenue for labor. And for as long as a market-economy is based upon Supply & Demand, the price of everything (including money) is set by the principal actors - namely consumers like you and me.

Printing money is just a facilitating mechanism to the process of Supply & Demand. It's level is set by how often people employ it. In fact, most people use credit or debit cards whilst purchasing. So, do tell how the government would control that supply of money.

Sorry, I just don't see how your plan is workable ... the supply of money must be allowed to set itself. As an exchange mechanism it serves the purpose of trading between the Consumer and the Supplier. It is not in itself the key mechanism.

The key mechanism is the desire of consumers to consume goods/services - and in that sense, money is just a "tool" ...
_________________

 

You mean by allowing a bank to set interest rates based on the % of its reserves it lends out and the risk in its loans?

 

Bank interest rates on money they borrow are set by the FRB. General interest rate to the public are this rate plus their working margin. It is with the working margin that they compete because all banks borrow their money from the FRB at the same rate, which they loan to the public.

 

The government borrows on the open-market (by means of Treasury Notes) and pays an interest on T-notes.

Federal wages are paid out tax-revenues as well as borrowed money (if necessary). No resources are being "stolen" from any private or public source. They are, however, being employed to pay for services rendered (by various government agencies).

Like for instance Pension Funds, which most of us quite like to receive. And I don't see these funds being "stolen". Or any other purpose as defined in the National Budget.

Unless one has a sinister purpose on a public forum to insist they are "stolen"?

 

they are stolen which is why they are stolen at gun point.

 

the issue was whether it was better to let individual banks set their own interest rates rather than grant the Fed a monopoly over the entire countries rate so that if they are mistaken the entire country has a depression. Do you understand?

 

so you want to abolish the Fed??