Why not solve simple poverty in our republic...

Good for corporations, bad for people who need work.

 

Actually....no! Apparently you did not read the articles I linked you to. In the first place, what is good for corporate American is good for America, and American labor. In addition for every job "lost" 1+ was created to take their place. Some studies go so far as to to put that number at 1.7 to 1. But the most important issue is simply that if corporate American is not doing well, labor cannot do well. So unless you put the cart before the horse it is important you recognize that to hire workers corporate America's health and total US prosperity must be doing well. Healthy corporate will in a healthy atmosphere of government fiscal policy and adequate profits hire more workers. Our last recession was 100% caused by domestic issues, not offshoring. That does not stop some of the prognosticators from blaming off shoring, even when they are dead wrong.

Some times I feel like I am back at the University teaching students who haven't got a clue, and you are one of the ones without a clue. In this game of life there are always "winners" and there are always "losers." Obviously a specific group of people may lose their jobs to capital mobility but in the overall picture the same number or more workers will find jobs. The big picture is what we study when determining the value or lack there of in any specific economic snapshot; and it is very important to remember, unless capital is happy, no one is happy, and it doesn't matter what type of economy you are in whether it is a capitalist or socialist economy.

Another thing to remember is, THERE IS ALWAYS CAPITAL, even if that capital is owned or controlled by the state; so effectively socialism is a stretch of capitalism to exist even for a little while.

 

I have a easy solution if army barracks were good enough in troops get a big barracks, say 40 bunk beds adding a cafeteria and other basics and put those in need in those adding a foot locker and give them say $200 a month to spend there no more issues you never have to work but you live very modestly. Families can get a small trailer and more money. But make sure working and staying is better than the freebies to encourage working. If you again take all the money spent now, cut it 25% and make it illegal to waste large amounts of edible food that going to the social program I noted you could provide a two hots and a cot for all. And if they test for illegal drugs or are an issue boot them out and they get NOTHING that should make most poor behave.

 

A contractor, in Atlanta I think, offered $16 Million of his own money to make motel style studio apartments for the homelesss/poor. He planned on building them on his own land and each studio would have a small bath w/shower and a small kitchenette. The city turned him down because they did not meet the cities square foot regulations for construction. Needless to say, he took his land and his money, built luxury apartments and made a few more millions of $$$$$$. Our bleeding heart trolls at work.

When I stayed in a resettlement colony in India, working and hunting for meat, the Indian Government was building even smaller units for whole families of 3 or 4 to live in, and they were happy to get them. Initially they were communes in which the farm implements were community owned. That didn't last long because the high achievers who really worked at their land made enough money to buy out their community neighbors and eventually they paid off the government to buy their land. Such goes every socialist experiment ever tried.

 

That was the whole point of my line of reasoning.

 

They are hypothetical for comparison and contrast. Government is by definition, a form of socialism, not capitalism and is established by a social contract. Any government owns and controls its public sector means of production.

 

Simply resorting to fallacies and claiming any confidence in your sincerity is not very conducive to it. 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? Are you claiming that basic economic concepts cannot be self-taught, with consistent access to capital, under Any form of Capitalism.

 

Your line of reasoning is unsound to the extent you do not factor for a natural rate of unemployment which could engender poverty in any economy even if everyone obtained a doctorate.

 

It is about the moral goodness of bearing true witness to our own laws; why do you not believe in morals?

 

Then you agree with me that rewarding "couch potatoes" is counter productive.

 

Nope! Government is government. Government is not socialist or capitalist. The government in a socialist economy must be autocratic/dictatorial to keep the people in line. Socialism is not viable.

There is no public sector means of production in capitalism. Government is only there to enforce the laws and protect private property; and the production of government owned or controlled socialist enterprises is insignificant when compared to capitalism.

 

I agree, you tend to resort to fallacies.

More mish mash!

Stated in detail in my last post on this subject.

. 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. ​

All mish mash. Explain yourself if you want me to address it.

No!

What has access to capital have to do with learning basic economic concepts?

Under any system!

Do you read what you write after you type it Daniel? Most of your comments in this post are unintelligible. Try to be more concise. It is hard to figure out what you mean.

 

In fact I always figure in structural unemployment, and that structural unemployment would only engender poverty in those who choose not to work and are not eligible for social programs, and that is how it should be. Those who CHOOSE not to work have nothing to complain about if they live in poverty.

 

No Daniel, it is not. Structurally unemployed people, other than those who can't work, do so by choice. Nothing in our laws or "our social contract" suggests we owe them anything but the opportunity to look for work. I do believe in morals, good morals, good ethics. I also understand that rewarding malingerers is not a moral effort.

 

The only way out is for the U.S. to give up a reserve currency and consumer spending economy. That will mean a significant decline in military spending and infrastructure, the dissolution of a middle class lifestyle, and control of the financial sector.

 

Not at all; what if, for example, a federal republic to our south decided they want to Use capitalism better through sufficient socialism to pay people to be couch potatoes instead of coming over here and making us look bad with a third world work ethic, that may be indistinguishable from an Iron Age work ethic, in our more developed, mixed market economy that includes elements of both capitalism and socialism, for division of labor gains.

 

You can't have it both ways; government is Not only Government, but sufficient socialism to effect the means toward its own ends. In our Case, we have a Social contract that "directs" our government toward those ends specifically enumerated, without any Capital based principles involved.

A command economy is one example of government, not being merely government.

 

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? Can you re-state your rebuttal, it wasn't very clear since you mish-mashed the paragraph to make your special pleading with sentences, in a vacuum.

Are you claiming that basic economic concepts cannot be self-taught, with consistent access to capital, under Any form of Capitalism. Also, your rebuttal didn't adequately address this fact about learning money management through practice with money, instead of learning how to fish, in our more developed political-economy; where it Only takes money to make more money.

 

I'm telling you, negative income tax.

 

How would your scenario work in a hypothetical economy where every potential market participant obtains a doctorate? If you don't have any solutions for a lack of full employment, it must be a simple plan to fail providing for the general welfare in that manner.

 

If you have millions of people who are simply unwilling to work, which this country has, you will never get rid of poverty.

 

Yes, dnsmith, it is merely about enough morals to bear true witness to our own laws; why am I not surprised you don't have enough moral fortitude to understand that.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe we should merely end our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror as bad ideas founded on Socialism without sufficient moral fortitude to bear true witness to our own laws.

 

You keep repeating the same line. What the hell does "bear true witness to our own laws" even mean? Can you speak in plain English? This entire sentence makes no sense.

 

why invent new social programs when we already have existing legal and physical infrastructure, but not enough morals for free, to lower our tax burden via a moral of "goodwill toward men" and a positive economic multiplier effect in modern times.

- - - Updated - - -

It may take morals to understand it. You are welcome to recuse whenever it is too difficult for you.

 

In modern times but not the Iron Age, it only takes money to make more money under our form of Capitalism. We also have laws regarding employment at will and we even have unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

Want to re-construct your line of reasoning.