The blueprint for prosperity

[P@triot]

We are discussing economics and promoting the general welfare by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

It’s not market friendly if they government pays for it, you dolt.

 

[P@triot]

We are discussing economics and promoting the general welfare by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.

The dumbest dolt on USMB continues to confuse the difference between political (such as government) and economics (such as the free market).

I’ve explained it to him hundreds of times but he’s just not bright enough to catch on.

 

[P@triot]

nothing but diversion? why no Dictionary definition instead of an encyclopedic definition.

Everyone sees you avoiding the question, running, and trolling. That’s why you have 0 credibility on USMB. Sad.

 

[P@triot]

Full employment of capital resources is what we are discussing. Capital Must circulate not Labor to engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy.

That’s simply not true. And even people who barely know anything about economics know that much. The problem is, you’re a young kid and you think that using certain words makes you sound “smart”. But you misuse all of them and it shows you are actually stupid.

There is no “positive multiplier effect” from capitals circulating. If that were even remotely true, all we would have to do is have everyone in America pass $1,000 to their neighbors to the right of them and magically our economy would skyrocket.

Of course, even the dumbest among us realizes how laughable and ridiculous that is.

 

[P@triot]

When the US bought Alaska...who do you think owned the land?

Um...Russia.

or made the Louisiana Purchase...who do you think owned the land?

Um...France.

Holy shit are you one dumb little monkey. You think states owned those and the federal government bought/took them from the states?

 

[P@triot]

Post your definition so we can quibble. I don't make excuses.

Why are you asking hadit to “define” phrases and concepts that you keep using and posting?!?

He’s asking you to clarify your (outrageous) claims. If your claims are true, it should be very easy for you to clarify the information. So why are you struggling?

 

[nat4900]

An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% increase in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?

Notice how "republican" [sic] Clinton is praised in that video?

 

[Faun]

An astounding 80% drop in food stamps recipients in just over one year, and a 114% increase in incomes. Who could possibly argue with these results?

Wow, an 80% decrease. Thank you President Clinton.

 

[P@triot]

Notice how "republican" [sic] Clinton is praised in that video?

Notice how nat4900 has to bring extreme partisan ship into every post in his attempt to troll and divide?

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Solving for that will solve simple poverty. It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

Capitalism; What is that, sayeth the right wing.

 

[hadit]

What is the natural rate? Give a number and explain why it's significant. Hint, it should be really easy for you.

did you miss the previous post? the right wing has nothing but diversion not any form of valid arguments.

That's why I said it should be easy for you. Are you just counting on someone else digging up something for you and you still not be prepared to defend it?

Post your definition so we can quibble. I don't make excuses.

I didn't use the phrase. You did, you define it.

You are not quibbling anything about it; why don't You already know it if you are going to discuss economics.

It's obvious that you have no idea what it is, or that you don't want to say what it is because we're currently under it and you have no valid reason to force the taxpayers to pay you for not working. If you did know what it was, you'd define it for discussion.

The sad thing is, you will just pop up and repeat this whole thing all over again as if it was significant.

So, here's your last chance. What's the number?

 

[hadit]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Solving for that will solve simple poverty. It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

Capitalism; What is that, sayeth the right wing.

That didn't take long. Without meaningless phrases, what do you have?

 

[danielpalos]

did you miss the previous post? the right wing has nothing but diversion not any form of valid arguments.

That's why I said it should be easy for you. Are you just counting on someone else digging up something for you and you still not be prepared to defend it?

Post your definition so we can quibble. I don't make excuses.

I didn't use the phrase. You did, you define it.

You are not quibbling anything about it; why don't You already know it if you are going to discuss economics.

It's obvious that you have no idea what it is, or that you don't want to say what it is because we're currently under it and you have no valid reason to force the taxpayers to pay you for not working. If you did know what it was, you'd define it for discussion.

The sad thing is, you will just pop up and repeat this whole thing all over again as if it was significant.

So, here's your last chance. What's the number?

Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment that is a natural rate of inefficiency under socialism. The number doesn't matter because the right wing could not even give the federal civilian work force a raise, regardless.

Why complain about the cost of social services when unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Solving for that will solve simple poverty. It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

Capitalism; What is that, sayeth the right wing.

That didn't take long. Without meaningless phrases, what do you have?

they are not meaningless; you merely have nothing but fallacy instead of any valid rebuttals.

 

[P@triot]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Yes it does. It assures the lazy, the heroin addict, the criminal, etc. remain unemployed as there is no room for them in a civilized society.

 

[P@triot]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. Solving for that will solve simple poverty. It is more cost effective than means tested welfare. Capitalism; What is that, sayeth the right wing.

One problem: having the government pay people to not work is not “capitalism”. The fact that you try to convince people that it is, is fall-down hilarious.

You’re literally so stupid, that you don’t even know how stupid you are. You actually believe you can spew communist nonsense and convince people it is “capitalism”.

 

[P@triot]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

As hadit has pointed out dozens of times already...why are you unable to provide any sourced material for that claim? And what is that “natural rate”?

Failure to produce an answer to both of those basic questions is proof that you just made them up. You have 24 hours.

 

[P@triot]

Thank you President Clinton.

Um....Faun (Over Men)? I hate to shatter your alternate sense of reality, but Hitlery lost the election. She got her ass kicked by President Trump. She never became “President Clinton”.

 

[P@triot]

Why complain about the cost of social services when unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed is more cost effective.

What reliable study has made that claim?!?

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Yes it does. It assures the lazy, the heroin addict, the criminal, etc. remain unemployed as there is no room for them in a civilized society.

stop whining about the cost of social services, then; right wingers.