Balance of trade, globalization, and unemployment

solving simple poverty means abolishing homelessness and pan handling.

 

I love how folk try to use perceived fallacies to ignore content and derive valid comment. It amuses. You have used right wing dogma. You have pretended it wasn't. You regularly refer to 'solving simple poverty', even though no one really believes solving poverty is simple.

 

Providing recourse to a basic income on an at-will basis solves simple poverty in any capital economy.

 

You merely repeat comments that have been proven to be grunt. There's no basic income that eliminates poverty. There is no notion that solutions of poverty are simple.

Why didn't you think of going beyond Econ 101 vocab abuse?

 

It is simply not true. Poverty could not exist with recourse to a basic income under Any form of Capitalism. All that is Required, is that Capital Circulate.

 

Stamping your foot won't work. You have referred to right wing dogma. You have used that dogma to make nonsensical comment that the practical reality of the basic income guarantee doesn't support. Indeed, poverty analysis rejects all aspects of your "simple solution". Are you just going to repeat nonsense and pretend relevance?

 

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric?

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can ensure unemployed Labor has recourse to a basic income, even when not employed in the sector for Labor.

How would Any merchant in Commerce be worse off by knowing every customer should have recourse to capital under our form of Capitalism?

 

Yohre back to your habit of using a lot of words to say naff all.

We know that the basic income guarantee is incapable of eliminating poverty. We know that, while using such welfare systems is basic sense, the focus has to be on structural changes to the economy which reduce pre-welfare inequalities

 

lol. should i use, Google Translate. what part of Any of my argument, is too difficult for You to understand? or, is nothing but diversion more than a fallacy in right wing fantasy.

How would Any merchant in Commerce be worse off by knowing every customer should have recourse to capital under our form of Capitalism?

 

Understand? I understand everything you say. You dress up mundane comment (such as a basic income guarantee) and write fluff around it to pretend it's something more.

Just more fluff! You haven't referred to any radical overhaul of capitalism. You would need to if you really wanted to refer to poverty alleviation.

 

why? capitalism just eliminated 40% of the entire planet's poverty in China that had been starved by libsocialism.

 

if so why so afraid to present your best example of a structural change?

 

I'm really not interested in your celebration of dictatorship. It informs me that you don't understand the importance of freedom.

 

1) was about celebration of wealth not dictatorship
2) capitalism is all about economic freedom

 

You think a dictatorship exhibits economic freedom? Wow!

 

kindergarten definitions for you yet again : there is political freedom and economic freedom. Can you get with Mum and learn the definitions for us?

 

You think a dictatorship only impacts on political freedom? Wow

 

lol. nothing but diversion? How would Any merchant in Commerce be worse off with full employment of capital resources in the market for labor.

 

Full employment is just basic sense. That you assume it can eliminate poverty is just nonsense.

 

The mechanism is capitalism and the concept of employment at will, nothing could be simpler. Either Labor is gainfully employed or not, and should have recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State. With recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, Capital Circulates! No merchant in Commerce could be worse off than they are now.

And, more people will be spending money, and paying local taxes.

And, furthermore, we have yet to discuss any "aftermarkets" engendered through any public sector spending or the positive multiplier effect it must engender on Any capital economy; but, especially an economy like that of the US.

 

Again no content! We have numerous episodes of full employment. None were associated with zero poverty.

You can't use macroeconomic comment, given your NRU error.

Econ 101 abused! You throw out terms like multiplier and fail to recognise that they merely inform us of the role of fiscal stimulus. They provide no support for your "solving simple poverty" nonsense.

 

The mechanism is capitalism and the concept of employment at will, nothing could be simpler.

Either Labor is gainfully employed or not, and should have recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State. With recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, Capital Circulates!

No merchant in Commerce could be worse off than they are now.

You cannot explain how Any merchant in Commerce would be worse off.

 

Repeating drivel won't help! Full employment does not eliminate poverty. Basic income guarantees do not eliminate poverty.

 

You cannot explain how Any merchant in Commerce would be worse off.

You are welcome to cede the point and the argument, with Any fallacy instead of a better argument at lower cost.

 

You make no coherent response! Of course full employment is a positive. Of course a basic income guarantee is supportable. Neither, however, will eliminate poverty. Your claims are pants