CDZ redistribution of wealth

[Andylusion]

dude, are you willfully appealing to ignorance of any natural rate of unemployment?

You are conflating, the moments between jobs that happen to men to the years of sitting on their asses that happen to lazy people. You are also conflating, "disability" with said moments between jobs. You are further conflating, welfare hand-out checks with unemployment checks. You may also be conflating SS in retirement with said moments, but I'm not sure yet.

Solving for any natural rate of unemployment would solve for that, unless they want to stay poor on at-will basis.

The only reason people would want to stay poor on an at-will basis is if you make being poor more comfortable than working. America's poor are the richest poor this planet has ever seen.

Getting unemployment compensation, food stamps etc, usually isn't an incentive not to work, even in a state like California where the benefits are fairly generous.

Why should anyone have any incentive to work if there is a natural rate of unemployment that must be cleared, first?

You don't know what you are talking about, as you have proven many times. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[danielpalos]

You are conflating, the moments between jobs that happen to men to the years of sitting on their asses that happen to lazy people. You are also conflating, "disability" with said moments between jobs. You are further conflating, welfare hand-out checks with unemployment checks. You may also be conflating SS in retirement with said moments, but I'm not sure yet.

Solving for any natural rate of unemployment would solve for that, unless they want to stay poor on at-will basis.

The only reason people would want to stay poor on an at-will basis is if you make being poor more comfortable than working. America's poor are the richest poor this planet has ever seen.

Getting unemployment compensation, food stamps etc, usually isn't an incentive not to work, even in a state like California where the benefits are fairly generous.

Why should anyone have any incentive to work if there is a natural rate of unemployment that must be cleared, first?

You don't know what you are talking about, as you have proven many times. Thanks for stopping by.

nothing but diversion for your Cause?

When the economy is said to be at full employment, it is at its natural rate of unemployment. Economists debate how the natural rate might change. For example, some economists think that increasing labor-market flexibility will reduce the natural rate. Other economists dispute the existence of a natural rate altogether!

...

The lowest rate of unemployment that an economy can sustain over the long run. Keynesians believe that a government can lower the rate of unemployment (i.e. employ more people) if it were willing to accept a higher level of inflation (the idea behind the Phillips Curve). However, critics of this say that the effect is temporary and that unemployment would bounce back up but inflation would stay high. Thus, the natural, or equilibrium, rate is the lowest level of unemployment at which inflation remains stable. Also known as the "non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment" (NAIRU).

Source: Natural Unemployment Definition Investopedia

I am advocating solving for that simple social dilemma, on an at-will basis at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Want to help "diagnose" the Body politic, fellow, political animal?

 

[there4eyeM]

Perhaps there is too much concentration here on money instead of wealth. Wealth is a much greater, broader area than just the subcategory of currency. People, societies and nations can be motivated for other than dollars and such. Wealth is not limited even to material goods, or at least not what can necessarily be sold, liquidated. The Grand Canyon is a spectacular example of the wealth of America, a treasure. No one would think of selling it, yet it could be entered into the accounting of US assets.

The cooperation and love of people is part of the wealth of life, and it motivates very well.

People are motivated by more pay because of what it represents, not for what it is itself. Unfortunately, large numbers of people become so hypnotized that they confuse money for something it is not. Hoarding lucre to the detriment of true value, and values, would be a sin in any just system of faith.

 

[regent]

Since all nations have a system for redistributing the wealth, what nation has the best system?

 

[Andylusion]

Since all nations have a system for redistributing the wealth, what nation has the best system?

The nation with the least amount.

 

[Andylusion]

Solving for any natural rate of unemployment would solve for that, unless they want to stay poor on at-will basis.

The only reason people would want to stay poor on an at-will basis is if you make being poor more comfortable than working. America's poor are the richest poor this planet has ever seen.

Getting unemployment compensation, food stamps etc, usually isn't an incentive not to work, even in a state like California where the benefits are fairly generous.

Why should anyone have any incentive to work if there is a natural rate of unemployment that must be cleared, first?

You don't know what you are talking about, as you have proven many times. Thanks for stopping by.

nothing but diversion for your Cause?

When the economy is said to be at full employment, it is at its natural rate of unemployment. Economists debate how the natural rate might change. For example, some economists think that increasing labor-market flexibility will reduce the natural rate. Other economists dispute the existence of a natural rate altogether!

...

The lowest rate of unemployment that an economy can sustain over the long run. Keynesians believe that a government can lower the rate of unemployment (i.e. employ more people) if it were willing to accept a higher level of inflation (the idea behind the Phillips Curve). However, critics of this say that the effect is temporary and that unemployment would bounce back up but inflation would stay high. Thus, the natural, or equilibrium, rate is the lowest level of unemployment at which inflation remains stable. Also known as the "non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment" (NAIRU).

Source: Natural Unemployment Definition Investopedia

I am advocating solving for that simple social dilemma, on an at-will basis at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Want to help "diagnose" the Body politic, fellow, political animal?

No, I am no longer interested in discussing this topic with you. You'll have to find someone else. I'll talk with other people. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Andylusion]

Perhaps there is too much concentration here on money instead of wealth. Wealth is a much greater, broader area than just the subcategory of currency. People, societies and nations can be motivated for other than dollars and such. Wealth is not limited even to material goods, or at least not what can necessarily be sold, liquidated. The Grand Canyon is a spectacular example of the wealth of America, a treasure. No one would think of selling it, yet it could be entered into the accounting of US assets.

The cooperation and love of people is part of the wealth of life, and it motivates very well.

People are motivated by more pay because of what it represents, not for what it is itself. Unfortunately, large numbers of people become so hypnotized that they confuse money for something it is not. Hoarding lucre to the detriment of true value, and values, would be a sin in any just system of faith.

But then you look at Cuba, and Soviet Union, and Venezuela, and North Korea, and pre-1978 China, on and on and on.... and apparently basing a system on "love and cooperation" doesn't motivate people.

Any system that isn't based on the profit motive, ends up being bankrupt and empty (not literally bankrupt, but practically so). It simply doesn't work.

Even the Japanese are moving this way.

Nissan s 10-Million CEO Set to Top Japan Pay Rankings - Bloomberg Business

Now again, I know the Japanese CEOs are paid less overall, and for many years, their pay was almost "low" compared to Western CEOs.

And..... Japan has been in a 20 year long economic stagnation.

Now they are just now starting to pull out of it, and one of the changes nationally, was a move towards paying the CEO more, for more economic results. Growth for the company, is being translated in growth for CEO pay. And that dynamic is translating into growth for the country.

It seems clear to me, there's a connection here.

The "can be motivated for other than dollars" system never seems to show up.

And by the way, it doesn't seem all that shocking to me, and those on the right.

Yes, there are more motivations than just dollars, but what no one on the left seems to take into account is something called "RISK".

In every economic activity, there is "risk". Risk is the possibility that investing into something may fail, and you lose the money.

In any given scenario, the person who is in charge to determine whether that risk should be taken, will always calculate the possible consequence, verses the possible reward.

Hypothetical. Try and put yourself in the place of a CEO of a large company, and you are determining whether or not to fund hundreds of millions into a new project. For the sake of simplicity, let us say the project is a bran new product. You've done the research, and it's possible the product could be a huge hit. But there is always the possibility the product could completely fail, losing everything.

In a non-money love and cooperation based system, with zero dollar reward....

If the project fails, you could be fired, and demonized in society.

If the product succeeds, you will gain nothing. Perhaps someone might slap you on the back, and say 'good call'. Other than that, you get nothing. Your pay will remain exactly the same.

Capitalist based system, if you say yes and fund the project....

If the product fails, you could be fired, and demonized in society.

If the product succeeds, you gain a massive increase with stock options, bonuses, perhaps a larger salary and contract.

Which of those two systems, are you likely to take the risk? In fact, if you have no reward at all, would you even consider taking the risk? You have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. Instead you are less likely to even try anything risky.

Remember the Ford Edsel? Ford was convinced the Edsel was a winner. They predicted 200K unit sales the first year. Instead sold 60K tops, and declined quickly over the next 3 years, until they discontinued.

After such a massive flop, wasting $350 million which is $2.8 Billion in current dollars, in just 3 years, some people were lucky to keep their jobs.

Now if there was no profit motive, would you consider backing an equally ambitious, equally expensive new product project?

The answer for most people, would be no. They have a comfortable position as CEO, and the last project failed, and if it had succeeded, they would have seen no benefit. Lots of negatives, no positives. Why would anyone ever consider spending hundreds of millions more, to try a new project after that?

But of course, this is Capitalism, and there is a profit motive, and huge success results in huge reward. The executives at Ford, and the CEO, did decide to back a new project, and in just 2 years after the closing of Edsel in 1959, the biggest flop of the companies history, Ford signed off on the "Fairlane Group", which after a year, unveiled their prototype car....

That's right... the Ford Mustang I, which became the Ford Mustang that we still have today.

Profit is the motive. Without personal profit, the executives at Ford would never have the motivation to take any risks. The Mustang was a huge risk. The Edsel was a huge risk.

The reason people take a risk, is because there is a reward. While all that "cooperation and love" talk is nifty in theory, when faced with large risks, like losing your job as an executive at a top corporation, you are not going to take that risk, unless there is a comparable reward.

 

[ralfy]

Define "entitlement." Define government services.

Entitlement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Entitlement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

See also

Watch The Full Program Ten Trillion And Counting FRONTLINE PBS

Being entitled to life, liberty, property, justice, self defense.. all good things.

One of the largest prison systems in the world, increased surveillance of the populace, increasing debt passed on to the public, etc. "Good things," indeed.

Being entitled to do nothing, sit on your fat ass, and eat crap and watch TV all day... not a good thing.

This doesn't counter my argument.

Local government fire, police, rescue services are a good thing. Military, defending our country from attack is a good thing.

As long as debts can continue rising, then spending can continue rising. Otherwise....

Government services that take our income to redistribute to the rich entrepreneurs who use our income to move our jobs to china is a bad thing. Why should Americans pay for Chinese solar power manufacturing facilities in china? Why should American taxes be used to line the pockets of Obama's friends? Why should American taxes be PISSED AWAY on welfare hand-outs that would be better spent on hand-ups? Why should we go in DEBT UP TO OUR EARS to fund SHOVEL READY CRAP PROJECTS THAT NO ONE WANTS TO FUND?

Jobs (together with pollution) were moved to China because 70 pct of the work force wanted to go to the service industry while being able to buy lots of cheap goods manufactured abroad.

Taxes were used to bail out Obama's friends, which essentially consists of the U.S. financial elite, because Wall Street runs the U.S., not Washington. Who do you think also earns money from consumer goods sold to the citizens and arms sold to the police and military? Why do you think in exchange for tax cuts, entitlement, and easy credit to bolster consumer spending (which makes up a significant portion of the U.S. economy) there's also increased surveillance of the populace? Why do you think the Fed isn't actually a government office but a consortium of commercial banks?

The middle class rose in SPITE of our government not because of it.

The middle class started thanks to powerful industrialists who controlled much of the U.S. economy during the early part of the century, but only took off (together with a global middle class) thanks to deregulation (which is not surprising, as government works for Big Business) which led to increased financial speculation and availability of credit:

American Dream - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[there4eyeM]

How do we explain the success of Christianity?

 

[Andylusion]

How do we explain the success of Christianity?

Well... might have something to do with the empty tomb, but how this has anything to do with this particular thread, I have no idea.

When you walk around telling people that after healing people, and feeding thousands with a hand full of bread, that you will be killed and come back to life, and then do exactly that... it's mildly convincing to some.

Still don't know what this has to do with the topic at hand.

 

[there4eyeM]

It was stated:"Any system that isn't based on the profit motive, ends up being bankrupt and empty (not literally bankrupt, but practically so). It simply doesn't work."

 

[danielpalos]

Since all nations have a system for redistributing the wealth, what nation has the best system?

The nation with the least amount.

Perhaps you should make a motion with the right. It is their version of supply side economics that simply bails out the wealthiest and then lets the rest trickle down.

Gotta love the right's Faith in Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

The only reason people would want to stay poor on an at-will basis is if you make being poor more comfortable than working. America's poor are the richest poor this planet has ever seen.

Getting unemployment compensation, food stamps etc, usually isn't an incentive not to work, even in a state like California where the benefits are fairly generous.

Why should anyone have any incentive to work if there is a natural rate of unemployment that must be cleared, first?

You don't know what you are talking about, as you have proven many times. Thanks for stopping by.

nothing but diversion for your Cause?

When the economy is said to be at full employment, it is at its natural rate of unemployment. Economists debate how the natural rate might change. For example, some economists think that increasing labor-market flexibility will reduce the natural rate. Other economists dispute the existence of a natural rate altogether!

...

The lowest rate of unemployment that an economy can sustain over the long run. Keynesians believe that a government can lower the rate of unemployment (i.e. employ more people) if it were willing to accept a higher level of inflation (the idea behind the Phillips Curve). However, critics of this say that the effect is temporary and that unemployment would bounce back up but inflation would stay high. Thus, the natural, or equilibrium, rate is the lowest level of unemployment at which inflation remains stable. Also known as the "non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment" (NAIRU).

Source: Natural Unemployment Definition Investopedia

I am advocating solving for that simple social dilemma, on an at-will basis at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Want to help "diagnose" the Body politic, fellow, political animal?

No, I am no longer interested in discussing this topic with you. You'll have to find someone else. I'll talk with other people. Thanks for stopping by.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have and the confidence in your sincerity you could not advance, due to a willful lack of a clue and a Cause.

 

[danielpalos]

It was stated:"Any system that isn't based on the profit motive, ends up being bankrupt and empty (not literally bankrupt, but practically so). It simply doesn't work."

Socialism has social profit motives, not capital profit motives.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It was stated:"Any system that isn't based on the profit motive, ends up being bankrupt and empty (not literally bankrupt, but practically so). It simply doesn't work."

Socialism has social profit motives, not capital profit motives.

Socialism never works, no incentive to get ahead, you have two
comprehend we have to types of workers the Ones who just watch the clock and can not wait to go home and the ones who Don't want to go home.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism always works. Religion is a form of socialism not capitalism.

 

[there4eyeM]

Is this the generalization zone? All these categorical statements that are impossible to substantiate make discussion difficult.

There are many blends of socialism and capitalism; neither is monolithic and neither is wrong or right or always works or never works.

Religion is all over the place, but the original Christian community was completely communitarian (just to avoid a similar, emotionally charged word).

All the religions I am aware of do, however, maintain that distributing wealth to the needy is requisite.

 

[Andylusion]

Since all nations have a system for redistributing the wealth, what nation has the best system?

The nation with the least amount.

Perhaps you should make a motion with the right. It is their version of supply side economics that simply bails out the wealthiest and then lets the rest trickle down.

Gotta love the right's Faith in Capitalism.

"trickle down" and "supply side economic" are two different things.

Trickle down is simply how all economies work. It's a statement of fact.
And, the wealth *DOES* trickle down. Only the most economically illiterate would suggest otherwise.

I would challenge you to name one single thing in the room you are sitting at this moment, that would exist without some wealthy person?

Name a private sector job that would exist without a wealthy person? So if all employment is do to wealthy people, and all wealth itself is due to wealthy people, then clearly everyone who has either, is a living example of "trickle down" at work.

Until impoverished beggars start offering full time jobs to people, or selling their own national brand products, trickle down is how the world works.

In fact even public sector jobs are due largely to wealthy people, given most of the people in office are wealthy, and given most of the taxes paid to the government, or money lent to government, all come from wealthy people.

It would be wise to grasp how the economy works, in order to improve it. We've recently had several years of anti-trickle down economics, and that's resulted in less trickling down. This isn't much of a shock to those on the right, but seems baffling to those on the left, who then mock trickle down, proving how uneducated they are.

As for supply side economics, the most general fundamental concept is simply that lower taxes, lower regulations, will result is greater supply. A greater supply will benefit consumers.

The fact that the left opposes this, is rather hilarious to people like me on the right. If cutting taxes and reducing regulation does not benefit the consumers, then why are there special tax cuts and reduced regulation on 'green energy'? When the right-wing proposes imposing the same regulations already on other energy sources, on green energy, and the same tax laws on green energy, the left should be in favor of that, since they don't believe in supply-side economics.

Lastly, bailouts are not a part of trickle down, or supply side economics. It's not a part of capitalism.

Milton Friedman famously said, capitalism is a profit and loss system. Profit encourages risk taking, and loss encourages prudence.

When you socialize the loss, it's no longer the capitalism system. It won't work, without the loss motive constraining the risk taking with prudence. Again, only the most economically illiterate would conclude that *SOCIALIZING* the loss, is obviously a fundamental of capitalism.

Bailouts are a part of socialism, which I have always been against, and most people on the right were against it. The conservative caucus in the house of representatives, offered an alternative to the bailout, that would have allowed banks to solve their issues without any money from the public. I was greatly in favor of that.

 

[Andylusion]

Socialism always works. Religion is a form of socialism not capitalism.

No, and no. You are wrong as you have been routinely.

 

[Andylusion]

Is this the generalization zone? All these categorical statements that are impossible to substantiate make discussion difficult.

There are many blends of socialism and capitalism; neither is monolithic and neither is wrong or right or always works or never works.

Religion is all over the place, but the original Christian community was completely communitarian (just to avoid a similar, emotionally charged word).

All the religions I am aware of do, however, maintain that distributing wealth to the needy is requisite.

No it wasn't. Most religions suggest that you help the poor, as part of their doctrine. That's a huge difference between that, and "distributing wealth" to the needy.

Offering help to the poor involves ministries and service. "distributing wealth" involves giving your wealth to them. Entirely different concepts.

My father is excellent example of such. He had do much to help out those who he found in need. But he didn't sell off his home, or his property, or his assets, or his retirement fund.

This is in accordance with Biblical doctrine.

Helping the poor, is not the same as "distributing wealth" to the poor. Not the same.