Why not solve simple poverty in our republic...

I really don't care if you agree or disagree, it doesn't change the facts one iota.

Only if you have sufficient prosperity for the public sector to intervene, as in social programs funded by capitalism.

You can't correct for "a natural rate of unemployment" with socialism, and certainly the need for coercive government to maintain socialism even for a little while will not solve unemployment either. I prefer not to use propaganda or rhetorical convenience because if it isn't reasonably true, there is no point in saying it.

 

I know how it works ... I understand what you want.
What you want is the more of what made companies here look at production elsewhere.

Eliminate the competition by making it impossible for them to make the profits here ... And elsewhere.
The choice you offer is to pay more ... Nothing else*.



*Perhaps they can use a page out of President Obama's playbook ... Refuse to accept it, refuse to negotiate and blame the other side.

 

Going out for dinner with my sweetie and a granddaughter. Camaronies a la diabla, shrimp cooked in a medium hot Mexican sauce on a bed of rice with a lettuce, tomato, guacamole salad on the side with hot flour tortillas and a half pitcher of Margaritas. Muy Bueno!

 

Really.....Cause outsourcing was just as much a problem in the 80's when Reagan deregulated the market and lowered corporate taxes. Companies like Nike have outsourced jobs for years to take advantage of sweatshops, and now companies like Apple do it.

 

How about we just don't buy gear from Nike and I-Phones from Apple?
Why do you think the government is better at running a business when they cannot accomplish anything ... In fact, you seem to think they are somehow responsible for the way things are?

How about you take control of what is important to you ... And quit waiting for someone else to do the legwork, or pass a law that tells you or someone else what to do?
If you think you have an idea that would put an end to poverty ... Then why aren't you pursuing it ... Why are you looking to someone else to fix things for us?

 

I suppose it merely depends on the subjective value of morals.

- - - Updated - - -

I have already explained how socialism can solve for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiency, with existing legal and physical infrastructure in our republic.

 

Nike and IPODs are cheap because of the use of sweatshops. Most of the cheap products, like those sold at walmart, are sweat shop products. Americans are not likely to give up cheap products to buy American made goods which will be more expensive. I go out of my way to avoid buying any products which come from China or Mexico because they are mostly likely sweatshop products. Most people just don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Why not simply subsidize the least efficient labor market participants to pursue opportunity costs, other than participation in the market for labor?

 

Outsourcing was not a major problem in the 80s and it is not a major problem now. Corporate taxes are a problem and they should be eliminated and if you understood tax incidence you would recognize why. Even when Capital writes the check to the government to pay the corporate tax, it is usually not coming out of corporate coffers. What can be passed on to the consumer is, and what it can be passed on to labor it will be passed on. Especially if capital is mobile almost all corporate tax is passed onto labor. It is unfortunate that sweatshops exist but they will only be eliminated after the 3rd world countries in which they operate have their own economic revolution and their labor laws mature. Heaping more taxes on corporations to punish them for outsourcing only exacerbates the problem; not solve it.

You should really learn a little about the issues you want to discuss before blindly striking out with solutions which make the problems worse.

 

If it were only so simple. Morals as a human trait are not just subjective. And if you put a human in a stressful situation, his morality is subject to change. An example is, put a high achiever into the position of working his but off and not being paid fully for his contribution, and taking part of his productiveness and give it to those who are not working to achieve, and his moral outlook will change. Socialism will make immoral many things that were earlier were positively moral. It is the nature of the beast call socialism.

No, you haven't. What you have explained is how you believe socialist theory will improve things, in spite of the fact that every experiment with socialism has failed dismally. You keep hoping for a different result by continuing to tout a system that has always failed. Socialism is not efficient. Not by a long shot. And it can never reach the rate of efficiency as capitalism because it is a totally bad idea theorized by people who did not understand human nature or economics. As to our legal and physical infrastructure, it is there only because our capitalist economic system is efficient at creating wealth to pay for such infrastructure. I can't understand why you keep advancing the same theories time and again, all of which have failed every time they have been tried, and yet you expect that all of a sudden they will be successful. Do you understand the implications of that line of thought Daniel?

- - - Updated - - -

Most people can't afford to give a ****, when they know that buying that imported stuff doesn't hurt our economy anyway.

 

Subsidizing the least efficient labor market participants is counter productive. Those are the people who either can't do any better or choose not to do any better and subsidizing a bad situation is known as "throwing good money after bad." Achievement should be rewarded, not second rate labor. Reward labor for good work, good performance, good production as an example to the ones not doing such good work.

 

It does when the jobs to make those things were outsourced from the US. People who complain about there being no jobs and then buy from the companies that send the jobs overseas are just plain stupid.

 

It really is that simple. All it takes is sufficient, subjective value of morals, to bear true witness to our own laws and that form of socialism since Capitalism does not include the socialism of Laws; to solve simple poverty in our republic.

The infrastructure already exists in every State of the Union and the federeral districts.

Supply side economics is supposed to be supplying us with better governance at lower cost; according to the subjective value of some morals.

 

Counter productive to what, with any natural rate of unemployment? Did you forget about that inefficiency of Capitalism, which can ensure simple poverty in our republic, even if everyone obtained a doctorate.

Unemployment compensation delivers a market friendly, positive multiplier effect; unlike our more socialized and nationalized, wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; and, not only that, actually promotes the general welfare instead of the general warfare.

 

Actually outsourcing has been good for America.

1. It has kept corporate structure strong
2. It has not hurt the over all labor picture as much as you apparently think it does.

Though some people in some industries lost their jobs, they and others got other jobs and most lost very little or no income in the process. But if you are looking for who started this process of buying foreign goods, think back to the 60s and 70s when people started buying foreign cars. This was helped along when UAW sued on behalf of their members to get the US auto companies to allow imported cars in the parking lots. The UAW bit the hands there were feeding it for so many years and now some have lost their extortionary incomes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/outsourcing-good-america-cato-michael-tanner-141051681.html

 

Sourcing stuff offshore allows the consumer to avoid the needless cost of US regulation, litigation, and taxation.

None of those things adds any value to the product as far as the consumer is concerned.

 

In my opinion, we should be goading foreign, less developed States, to merely be socialist enough to pay their citizenry to be couch potatoes, instead of coming over here and making us look bad with a third world work ethic, in our first world economy.

 

No Daniel, it is not.

You are speaking of a "heaven on earth" situation which will never happen.

What ever you are witnessing, you must be smoking something pretty strong. I believe in following our laws, but I haven't witnessed them ever being enforced perfectly.

Are you talking about the form of socialism where government owns all production and distribution? Or are you talking about that form of socialism where government controls all production, distribution and wealth?

Governments in capitalist countries include all the laws enacted. BTW, the socialism of laws makes no sense. How is a law socialized?

Fortunately for our poor we live in a capitalist economic system such that we have the prosperity to help those poor folks.

Yep, because capitalism yielded sufficient prosperity to build that infrastructure.

Supply side economics does not supply us governance. Supply side economics suggest low or no tax on capital and capital producing goods and services for consumers to buy, and when combined with demand side economic realities creates the atmosphere for prosperity, but it is not the end all of economics. As to morals:

Morality is the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong. The term "objective" in philosophy refers to the idea that there are universal moral laws like good or bad, right or wrong and therefore these morals exist outside of any person, i.e. like the law of gravity, there is a moral law which exists independently of any person, that awaits to be found. Subjective morality however is where moral laws are based on personal feelings and thoughts, and therefore without any humans there would be no morality.​

 

Yes, it is. All that is required for a hypothetical, Commune of Heaven on Earth is sufficient social morals for free.

Government is a form of socialism and it does control all of the means of production to perpetuate itself.

 

Subsidizing inefficient is counter productive for an economy. When bad productiveness or behavior is rewarded it tends to continue that bad productiveness or behavior. It is the very basis of positive conditioning, creating positive activity which then receives a reward. When bad behavior is rewarded it further ingrains that bad behavior in the individual.

There is no "natural" rate of unemployment. Employment or unemployment is based on the productive needs, especially in on the supply side of economics.

Capitalism is the most efficient economic system ever devised, so tell me again what you think I forgot?

That phrase makes no sense at all. Can you just see a laborer out in the dirt digging a ditch for a water line?

Unemployment compensation workers who lose their jobs until the find another, but at a lower rate of compensation than wages.

All compensation has a multiplier effect based on the individual economic conditions at the time.

That is a mish mash of nothing Daniel. Enforcing the law is not relevant to any economic system and as such occurs no matter what kind of economic system a country has. Suggesting that there is something special about enforcing laws in either a capitalist economy or a socialist economy is nonsense.

 

Why do you believe subsidizing the least efficient potential labor market participants to pursue opportunity costs other than try to compete for an efficiency wage in the market for labor, would be bad thing in any Institution of money based markets which may benefit from any increase in the circulation of money instead of experiencing a poverty of money?

- - - Updated - - -

I subscribe to this line of reasoning:

Any lack of full employment of resources should be treated as an inefficiency rate to be corrected for through socialism via our legal and physical infrastructure.

 

What other countries do is not our business, except as it directly affects us. Paying people to be "couch" potatoes is counter productive. Our workers are among the most productive in the world, and workers coming from other countries will not have an effect on that.

 

All you have ever talked about are hypotheticals, which in the real world cannot happen. There will never be a "Heaven on Earth" nor are humans capable of achieving even a semblance of such. Social morals, actual morals, are what humans make of them.

No Daniel, government is not necessarily a form of socialism. Government is government and it can be in a socialist country or a capitalist country. To be a government in a socialist country it must own or control production of goods and services and wealth; and in such an arrangement, if it is not dictatorial the high achievers will overthrow it and form a capitalist economy. Socialism cannot survive for long and it is always in an autocratic/dictatorial nation.

 

Mish mash Daniel, but I will try and decipher what you said and answer it. Conditioning is a primary issue in animals, including humans. Positive conditioning is the means by which animals are taught to do what is wanted by habituating the action. When less efficient labor is rewarded for their poor performance, that poor performance is habituated; IE they are TRAINED TO BE INEFFECTIVE. The understanding of human behavior/psychology is the most important part of economics education. Rewarding poor behavior is always a bad practice.

Another rant does not change the facts. employment/unemployment may or may not be efficient depending on the economic cycle, and it has nothing to so with socialism or legality or infrastructure. We either need everyone to produce our goods and services or we don't. A capitalist economy tends to use employment very efficiently to accomplish those goals. Thus, if we don't need the production we reduce the employment. To do otherwise is the height of inefficiency. Carrying freeloaders on a payroll, either a capitalist payroll or a socialist payroll is inefficient and eats away at our prosperity. Giving compensation to people who are not productive is inefficient. That is the reason for unemployment insurance, be cause capital cannot afford to give money to unproductive people and neither can the government, so we pay premiums for the service. We don't live in the idealist world you would like. The various changes you want us to accomplish would do nothing but eliminate our prosperity.

Thank you for the support for my position Daniel. When talking about the "long-run" level of employment, it is that rate of employment required to maintain production through both the up and the down cycles of the economy. The use of the term "structural" is to reduce the verbiage to describe exactly that. Just like "structural" deficits are described as those deficits which under down business cycles will be repaid during up cycles. Structural unemployment means that at given wage, the quantity of labor supplied exceeds the quantity of labor required for production needs. This is considered to be effective permanent unemployment, whereas unemployment which changes as a result of temporary production needs will vary according to the economic cycle.

The natural rate of unemployment (sometimes called the structural unemployment rate[citation needed]) is a concept of economic activity developed in particular by Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps in the 1960s, both recipients of the Nobel prize in economics. In both cases, the development of the concept is cited as a main motivation behind the prize.[1][2] It represents the hypothetical unemployment rate consistent with aggregate production being at the "long-run" level. This level is consistent with aggregate production in the absence of various temporary frictions such as incomplete price adjustment in labor and goods markets. The natural rate of unemployment therefore corresponds to the unemployment rate prevailing under a classical view of determination of activity. It is mainly determined by the economy's supply side, and hence production possibilities and economic institutions. If these institutional features involve permanent mismatches in the labor market or real wage rigidities, the natural rate of unemployment may feature involuntary unemployment.​

Unemployment during that period IS the natural rate of unemployment. And as the quote goes on it shows us that during different situations that there will be involuntary unemployment. Basically it is saying very clearly the same thing I said earlier, the economy's natural rate of employment/unemployment is based on the needs of production of goods and services and only those unemployed during the up economic cycle are considered structural unemployed.

No where in any of that does it suggest we should compensate structural unemployed "workers." Unemployment compensation is not designed for the structurally unemployed. If that unemployment is based on the inability to work then social programs made possible by capitalism will assist them. Malingerers, or those who simply CHOOSE not to work should not be rewarded for their poor choice.

 

I think we need to recognize that there are some people who will not work because they don't want to work as well as some people who are disabled physically or mentally and ass a result cannot work. Let us label them the "structurally unemployed." Let us also recognize that we must assist that group which CANNOT WORK.

There are also people who want to work but can't because they don't have the skills to do the available labor (this is where trade education is needed) and there are the people who want to work but the jobs are not available in their area. Some of these people CANNOT MOVE for one reason or another; such as a spouse who has a good job and can't afford to give it up to move. Some of them simply don't want to move to where the work is. For this group, the ones who don't want to work, I have no sympathy.