Balance of trade, globalization, and unemployment

Once again, you are having trouble with the English language.

No, it aint is the response to your above remark.

 

Long rant with no point. America is competing fairly well which is why we have 96% employment. The problem is wages and we could get a huge bump in wages very easily by encouraging the Donald to ship home 30 million illegals. if we wanted still more we could reduce corporate taxes which have been at the highest rate in the world very very stupidly, if we want still more we can make unions illegal so foreign corporations would want to operate here and bring us jobs, and if we wanted still more we could reduce regulationsWhich are among the most burdensome in the world. Now you understand trade!

 

You've been caught out abusing Econ 101, nothing more. You've grabbed an expression, thinking it would make your argument more than a nonsensical "unemployment benefit solves poverty". You chose a concept, mind you, that just added another layer of nonsense.

The NRU? The clue is in the title: natural. It's a merely application of the vertical Phillips Curve. You can't reduce unemployment (other than by supply side measure such as making benefits less generous); there's no point in fiscal stimuli as the economy hypothetically quickly returns to its natural state.

 

When it comes to Americans doing farm work it is not about the wages! Farming is hard work! 99% of Americans cannot last past lunch time on the first day of work. As labor becomes more of a problem automation will increase. When labor and automation and the cost of farming become unworkable...the farms will simply disappear.

The cost of doing business in the US is what it is and this cost does not allow the US to compete in certain industries and product areas...so why go there and why whine? As long as consumers demand these products business will fill that demand with imports.

Regarding Mexico, if I were president, I would put in place everything imaginable to unite the two nations. I would look at Mexico as a great untapped investment opportunity with synergy to the US. Imagine how Mexico could benefit the US if the US treated Mexico like we do Israel or Afghanistan or Iraq in which the US provides billion$ and equipment and security and knowledge?

 

Yes, it is.

 

lol. only right wingers, claim that.

 

Yes, this was the sort of infantile dysfunctional thinking for which she was famous, which attracted her to another political dunderhead with the same deficiency called Ronald Reagan ...

 

Claim what?

Learn how to reply with a copy. If you can ...

 

Given the NRU is a right wing concept? What a shocker!

 

I am merely using the NRU for a statistical reference, not doctrinal purposes.

 

lol. I am merely using the NRU for a statistical reference, not doctrinal purposes.

 

The NRU is 'doctrinal', by definition. You simple don't understand it's nature.

 

thatcher was right. under capitalism both buyer and seller have incentive to be contributing, caring members of society while under liberalism they have incentive only to be moochers.

 

lol.

so, anyway; why do you believe any command economy may not simply, command economize its way to prosperity?

it should be a simple ratio of tax base to expenditures.

Hypothetically, a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed, should solve simple poverty under our form of capitalism; and grow our economy and generate sufficient tax revenue to provide for the common defense and general welfare.

 

You don't understand that (1) I am redirected by the software employed to anyone who makes a response to my comment.

But (2), if your response does not show a "comment's reference" I have no way of knowing from whom it came and therefore its context ...

 

Because the entrepreneur is key. And you're also wrong about minimum wages. They're well known to be ineffective at poverty alleviation. The living wage is more about a structural transformation of the economy, where production of good with low income elasticity of demand becomes unattractive.

 

you are welcome to ask questions, any time you want.

 

simple recourse to a simple income on an at-will basis; potentiates anyone, being an entrepreneur.

 

Nope. Social democracy will increase self employment, but you need socialism to give full economic choice

 

lol. only in Anarcho-Capitalist fantasy.

Social-ism is about Order, not Chaos.

 

You're not making sense. Socialism won't work unless genuine choice is offered. Worker ownership of large enterprises; entrepreneurial freedom for SMEs

 

lol. the right only advocates, a "work or die" ethic.

simply having recourse to an income, helps any potential entrepreneur.

 

You're back to your repetition strategy I see. Social democracy does not guarantee economic choice. It merely reduces poverty.

 

so what; I am a federalist. equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes, can help any potential entrepreneur.

 

Another meaningless statement!