Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The dumbest dolt on USMB continues to confuse the difference between political (such as government) and economics (such as the free market).We are discussing economics and promoting the general welfare by solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner.
Full employment of capital resources is what we are discussing. Capital Must circulate not Labor to engender a positive multiplier effect upon our economy.
Um...Russia.When the US bought Alaska...who do you think owned the land?
Um...France.or made the Louisiana Purchase...who do you think owned the land?
Why are you asking hadit to “define” phrases and concepts that you keep using and posting?!?Post your definition so we can quibble. I don't make excuses.
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?
You are not quibbling anything about it; why don't You already know it if you are going to discuss economics.Post your definition so we can quibble. I don't make excuses.did you miss the previous post? the right wing has nothing but diversion not any form of valid arguments.What is the natural rate? Give a number and explain why it's significant. Hint, it should be really easy for you.
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?
I didn't use the phrase. You did, you define it.
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.
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.You are not quibbling anything about it; why don't You already know it if you are going to discuss economics.Post your definition so we can quibble. I don't make excuses.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?
I didn't use the phrase. You did, you define it.
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?
they are not meaningless; you merely have nothing but fallacy instead of any valid rebuttals.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?
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.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.
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”?Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.
stop whining about the cost of social services, then; right wingers.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.Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.