NATURAL rate of unemployment. The clue is in the title. No policy required, the economy NATURALLY moves to it. In the developed world there has only been one genuine attempt to implement supply side economics: Britain's Thatcherism. Poverty went through the roof! You've got nothing but simple abuse of terms. You can't even blag otherwise
Are you claiming that a natural rate of unemployment is static regardless of inputs? If not, they my view must be more correct, naturally. Solving official poverty does not require rocket science, and we have already been to the moon and back.
"True supply side economics"? Meaningless again! As already remarked, the only genuine attempt to utilize supply side economics (i.e. we can discount the likes of Reaganomics as it was just good ole Keynesianism) led to a massive increase in poverty. Let's recap on your argument: (1) Based on a Phillips curve analysis irrelevant to poverty analysis (2) Includes some vague reference to minimum wages despite such wage fixing being understood as ineffectual in poverty alleviation (3) Refers vaguely to supply side economics despite those policies being behind poverty increases
"True supply side economics" is only meaningless when there is no benchmark Standard. In my opinion, supply-side economics works in the manner it should, when it conforms to the theory of supply and demand, and the assumption of perfectly competitive markets. The Phillips curve is a tool for understanding some metrics; but, in our US case, it has more to do with being moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws. In my use of the term, minimum wage, it merely acts as that form of sign, omen, and portent, regarding our objective and market based reality, where economic forms of discrimination are both legal and socially acceptable. Demand side economics masquerading as supply side economics usually does what you claim.
Meaningless again! This is nonsensical! Referring to supply & DEMAND when commenting on SUPPLY-side economics isn't cunning. Perfectly competitive markets, by definition, cannot exist. We wouldn't want them to exist either as we'd need product homogeneity and cost curves devoid of the advantages of economies of scale. You've said nothing here. The Phillips Curve is used in a redundant debate between Keynesians and Monetarists over inflation. Nothing to do with poverty! You've said nothing here either! The minimum wage cannot be used to eliminate poverty. End of Given your previous reference to demand, I nearly smiled here. Only nearly mind you.
I only agree with you that some things are meaningless, without a Standard. I am not the one claiming supply side economics can work in a vacuum without special pleading. Perfectly competitive markets are an assumption made by the theory of supply and demand regarding full employment of resources and that form of benchmark Standard. How does your point of view account for money based markets and that form of liquidity, as a form of "perfect competition"? Why do you believe having one hundred percent as a benchmark Standard would require product homogeneity and cost curves devoid of the advantages of economies of scale, under any form of Capitalism where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable? Even money based markets are not that homogenous since it could be claimed that different currencies constitute a different "product" that may not be based on our US product. Like I said, in our US case, it has more to do with being moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws, instead of simply quibbling about forms of economic tools. In my use of the term, minimum wage, it merely acts as that form of sign, omen, and portent, regarding our objective and market based reality, where economic forms of discrimination are both legal and socially acceptable. I use the term minimum wage in its relative sense for price discrimination purposes to differentiate between that wage and a prevailing, market based wage for rational choice theory decision making ability. In this case, a minimum wage would simply subsidize the least efficient to not provide labor input to the economy, and still be more cost effective than means tested welfare; while providing that minimum wage metric.
You're making, quite frankly, preposterous claims. And of course you cannot respond to any of the comments made. Perfect competition cannot exist. All of the assumptions are unrealistic and/or undesirable. Your use of it is as naive as your attempt to refer to the natural rate of unemployment on a thread about poverty A nonsensical question where you've again randomly put together economic vocab. Another nonsensical question. You simply do not understand what perfect competition entails and you've used it thinking it makes your comment look more studious. That hasn't worked as, to get away with it, you need at least some understanding of what the terms mean. More nonsense. Your morality is based on abusing economic concepts? Strange stance! You've gone a step further here. Typically you just abuse terms. Here you've managed to abuse the English language. Again, this is just drivel. There is zero sense of price discrimination in your argument. A minimum wage cannot subsidise, the very notion is nonsense.
I am not sure how you reached your conclusion. However, since this part of my argument is true, so is the rest of my argument; unless you can find some actual fallacies instead of simply resorting to special pleading. Conforming to the theory of supply and demand simply provides a basis for those metrics and gives us an (market failure rate or) inefficiency rate that correlates to an unemployment rate in the market for labor. In other words, we now have a basis for full employment and an inefficiency rate that can be corrected for. Simply being able to apply for unemployment compensation on the same at-will basis would solve for an inefficiency rate in the market for labor under our current regime, since only persons actively looking for work are counted in the unemployment rolls; the poverty rolls, however, make no such distinction in money based markets, except for the use of money in those markets.
By actually understanding the terms that I use. You haven't bothered with that slice of sense. Perfect competition needs a homogeneous product, perfect information, many buyers and sellers, price taking behaviour etc. Its ridiculous to use the term within this thread
Resorting to special pleading to make a point you don't have is not the same as actually understanding the topic under discussion.
You haven't got a point. You just don't understand what perfect competition entails. We don't have perfect information. We don't have homogeneous product. We certainly don't have price taking behaviour. Catch up!
Conforming to the theory of supply and demand simply provides a basis for those metrics and gives us an (market failure rate or) inefficiency rate that correlates to an unemployment rate in the market for labor. In other words, we now have a basis for full employment and an inefficiency rate that can be corrected for.
No we don't. All we have is you abusing two concepts: NRU and perfect competition, neither of which are relevant to the thread's topic.
Why do you believe I am abusing any terms, if I have defined them according to the context and my argument? Both are relevant to the topic at hand, because official poverty still exists, and you apparently have no real solutions with your current methodologies. Why do you believe that a natural rate of unemployment is static in regards to our US economy? If that is not the case, then why claim I am not being accurate in my description of a natural rate of unemployment in its natural environment and Age? Are you also claiming that a natural rate of unemployment is no different in an Information Age than the Iron Age; if not, then my view must be more correct.
Believe? Your misuse of terms cannot be disputed. You'd also be quote wrong to suggest that you're simply re-defining well known vocab to suit your needs. We've seen that your argument doesn't rise above hot air with the comments about supply side economics, despite that such economics is inherently linked with an increase in poverty. On the brightside, this is the only occasion you've actually said anything relevant to the thread A solution first has to consider the determinants of poverty risk. There's nothing in your posts that gets close. Your Phillips Curve based invalidity over the natural rate of unemployment, for example, couldn't be applied as the US- compared to other western nations- traditionally has lower unemployment rates. A nonsensical question as the NRU analysis is embedded within an inflationary analysis that I reject. You certainly can refer to time dependence in unemployment rates. However, such hysteresis effects reflect destruction of human capital and are quite alien to your supply-side prance
You are welcome to provide more correct definitions whenever you want. Links are most welcome, especially to standardized definitions of any terms you believe I may be abusing, even without resorting to fallacies. Please be advised that I am in possession of several dictionaries and thesauri. Are you really claiming that the anecdotal evidence of mediocre public policy decisions is what you are basing your line of reasoning on regarding supply side economics, instead of a logical construct for that purpose? One poverty risk and the one that can easily be ameliorated, is one where poverty can be induced through unemployment, without any recourse to unemployment compensation. That is how simple such a public policy could be, to actually solve one form of official poverty; and, all it requires is merely sufficient morals to bear true witness to our own laws. We even have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge of allegiance to help out. Why do you believe that a natural rate of unemployment is not "natural" given the current parameters of our current regime, for a natural rate of unemployment? I don't need to resort to inflationary effects on any structural forms of unemployment; I am not sure why you do. I tend to discount the inflationary effects in modern times since our central bank actually has more "tools" to work with, with an inflation rate above zero percent. Gains in productivity are another reason. There is no reason not to expect gains in productivity in a manner analogous to farm subsidies in the US, which has allowed two percent of the population to do what twenty-five percent did before subsidies went into effect.
Jeff Clark, writing for Casey Research, talks about the downfall of every fiat currency (the dollar ) are the two Ds. Debts and Deficits So with that in mind, consider the following: Morgan Stanley reported that there is "no historical precedent" for an economy that exceeds a 250% debt-to-GDP ratio without experiencing some sort of financial crisis or high inflation. US total debt currently exceeds GDP by roughly 400%. Detailed studies of government debt levels over the past 100 years show that debts have never been repaid (in original currency units) when they exceed 80% of GDP. US government debt will exceed 100% of GDP this year. Marc Faber reports that once a country's payments on debt exceed 30% of tax revenue, the currency is "done for." By some estimates, the US will hit that ratio this year. ( I dont think we will get this high this year but who knows) Peter Bernholz, a leading expert on hyperinflation, states unequivocally that "hyperinflation is caused by government budget deficits." Next year's US budget deficit is projected to be $1.3 trillion. The US economy just is not what it used to be. Unemployment is tracked on the basis of how many folks are receiving unemployment checks. Those who run out of benefits or who never qualified to receive them in the first place are not counted. Real unemployment is much higher than reported. If one thinks the deficit can be cut (think austerity) without creating more suffering ! gander across the pond over to Greece. More suffering and more poor are on the way. The US has been financing excess through deficit spending (borrowing more and more) for 30 years and now it is time to pay the piper. We have been hearing the pipes over hill for quite some time now .. louder and louder .. and he is getting really close. The Piper is coming to collect ..
Unemployment compensation has already been proved to generate a positive multiplier effect; and may also generate positive gains from increases in productivity.
Why would I want to refer to perfect competition, supply side economics or concepts related to the Phillips Curve? All would be irrelevant to the thread. You need to stop with the spam and actually refer to the thread's topic
There is nothing in your response that can be applied to the thread's request: why does the US have high poverty compared to its Western counterparts?
Incorrect, as usual. From the CIA World Factbook United States - 15.1% poverty Germany - 15.5% poverty United Kingdom - 14.0% poverty Belgium - 15.2% poverty Denmark - 12.2% poverty Greece - 20.0% poverty Japan - 15.7% poverty South Korea - 15.0% poverty Israel - 23.6% poverty Portugal - 18.0% poverty Spain - 19.8% poverty Spare me the usual econometrics BS - frankly, it bores me. If you have a problem with the numbers, call (703)-482-0623. They'll be more than happy to discuss their analysis methods with you.
Do you even read the garbage you copy and paste? "Definitions of poverty vary considerably among nation"? Not in this thread it doesn't. See, for example, the previous reference to the LIS. US high poverty cannot be questioned. Its fact. Now try and offer an explanation for it.
You rambled on about deficit spending. You haven't got anything US specific to explain the US 'poor' poverty performance. Bit obvious really
