The blueprint for prosperity

[P@triot]

you have no valid argument only diversion...

Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim?

5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.

Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.

Rules of debate

 

[danielpalos]

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.

They are economic concepts.

Um....no they aren’t. They are CLAIMS of statistics. Claims that you can’t provide sources for and statistics that you can’t provide numbers for.

And with that...you have now unequivocally PROVEN that you made it all up and have been lying for months now. Thank you!

Government statistics can work. It is Natural for capitalism to be inefficient. Socialism can bail out capitalism for that.

Too late. You’ve had weeks to provide even a single link to your claims. You’re failure to provide said links is indisputable proof that you made it all up. Unacceptable.

I don't appeal to ignorance. The term exists. Why not look it up.

 

[danielpalos]

whatever it is, it is Natural for Capitalism to have that specific inefficiency,

How can you propose a solution for something if you can’t even identify the problem?

it is Natural for Capitalism not Socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

more than zero. Capitalism really is, That inefficient.

Why is more than zero “inefficient” in your mind? A rational person would argue that capitalism is SO efficient, it produces a rather high number of unemployed because not as many people are required to produce a product (driving up supply while driving down cost).

It is an inefficiency and drag on our market based economy. We should have no homeless on our streets.

 

[danielpalos]

it should be a self-evident Truth that means testing must be more expensive than compensation for a Natural capital phenomena.

Key word here: should. I should be President of the United States. But I’m not. So let’s focus on reality. How?!? How is that a self-evident “truth”?

it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless. Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.

 

[danielpalos]

you have no valid argument only diversion...

Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim?

5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.

Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.

Rules of debate

employment is at the will of either party; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed conforms to that doctrine.

 

[hadit]

Typical left-wing response to facts that prove they lied. “So what”. One can respond like that when they believe facts don’t matter.

Prime example of why nobody takes the left seriously about anything.

the right wing only has ignorance to appeal to. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment. That is a fact that the right wing ignores.

And what is that rate?

more than zero. Capitalism really is, That inefficient.

Less than 100? More?

Maybe you should just guess.

whatever it is, it is Natural for Capitalism to have that specific inefficiency,

At least you're admitting you don't know. Now, if you could only understand how not knowing what it is completely undercuts how you're trying to use it...

 

[hadit]

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.

They are economic concepts.

Um....no they aren’t. They are CLAIMS of statistics. Claims that you can’t provide sources for and statistics that you can’t provide numbers for.

And with that...you have now unequivocally PROVEN that you made it all up and have been lying for months now. Thank you!

Government statistics can work. It is Natural for capitalism to be inefficient. Socialism can bail out capitalism for that.

Too late. You’ve had weeks to provide even a single link to your claims. You’re failure to provide said links is indisputable proof that you made it all up. Unacceptable.

I don't appeal to ignorance. The term exists. Why not look it up.

Because you bring it up, over and over again. You use it to try to boost your claim to the fruit of other peoples' labor, over and over again. So define it and defend how it applies to what you assert.

 

[hadit]

you have no valid argument only diversion...

Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim?

5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.

Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.

Rules of debate

employment is at the will of either party; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed conforms to that doctrine.

That's not what you mean though. What you want is to be paid even though you didn't work, are not working, can work, but have no intention of working. That's not UE.

 

[hadit]

it should be a self-evident Truth that means testing must be more expensive than compensation for a Natural capital phenomena.

Key word here: should. I should be President of the United States. But I’m not. So let’s focus on reality. How?!? How is that a self-evident “truth”?

it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless. Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.

Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.

 

[danielpalos]

you have no valid argument only diversion...

Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim?

5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.

Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.

Rules of debate

employment is at the will of either party; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed conforms to that doctrine.

That's not what you mean though. What you want is to be paid even though you didn't work, are not working, can work, but have no intention of working. That's not UE.

the right wing is for, "wage slavery" to help the rich get richer faster?

 

[danielpalos]

it should be a self-evident Truth that means testing must be more expensive than compensation for a Natural capital phenomena.

Key word here: should. I should be President of the United States. But I’m not. So let’s focus on reality. How?!? How is that a self-evident “truth”?

it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless. Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.

Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.

I don't make excuses. I understand the concept or ask questions.

 

[hadit]

you have no valid argument only diversion...

Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim?

5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.

Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.

Rules of debate

employment is at the will of either party; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed conforms to that doctrine.

That's not what you mean though. What you want is to be paid even though you didn't work, are not working, can work, but have no intention of working. That's not UE.

the right wing is for, "wage slavery" to help the rich get richer faster?

No.

 

[hadit]

it should be a self-evident Truth that means testing must be more expensive than compensation for a Natural capital phenomena.

Key word here: should. I should be President of the United States. But I’m not. So let’s focus on reality. How?!? How is that a self-evident “truth”?

it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless. Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.

Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.

I don't make excuses. I understand the concept or ask questions.

You most certainly do not. Understand the concept, that is.

 

[danielpalos]

you have no valid argument only diversion...

Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim?

5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.

Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.

Rules of debate

employment is at the will of either party; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed conforms to that doctrine.

That's not what you mean though. What you want is to be paid even though you didn't work, are not working, can work, but have no intention of working. That's not UE.

the right wing is for, "wage slavery" to help the rich get richer faster?

No.

Then, why the problem with solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

 

[danielpalos]

it should be a self-evident Truth that means testing must be more expensive than compensation for a Natural capital phenomena.

Key word here: should. I should be President of the United States. But I’m not. So let’s focus on reality. How?!? How is that a self-evident “truth”?

it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless. Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.

Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.

I don't make excuses. I understand the concept or ask questions.

You most certainly do not. Understand the concept, that is.

let's start here. most people understand these concepts here:
Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia

 

[hadit]

Soooooo you consider it “diversion” to insist on supporting facts for a claim?
Clearly you were cut from your junior high’s debate team.

Rules of debate

employment is at the will of either party; unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed conforms to that doctrine.

That's not what you mean though. What you want is to be paid even though you didn't work, are not working, can work, but have no intention of working. That's not UE.

the right wing is for, "wage slavery" to help the rich get richer faster?

No.

Then, why the problem with solving for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

You don't even know what that is, so why are you yammering about it ad nauseum?

 

[hadit]

Key word here: should. I should be President of the United States. But I’m not. So let’s focus on reality. How?!? How is that a self-evident “truth”?

it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless. Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.

Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.

I don't make excuses. I understand the concept or ask questions.

You most certainly do not. Understand the concept, that is.

let's start here. most people understand these concepts here:
Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia

Good. Now you tell us what it is and how it applies?

Then, tell us why we should consider those who can work but won't to be unemployed.

 

[danielpalos]

it is Only not a self-evident Truth for the clueless and the Causeless. Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics or politics.

Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.

I don't make excuses. I understand the concept or ask questions.

You most certainly do not. Understand the concept, that is.

let's start here. most people understand these concepts here:
Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia

Good. Now you tell us what it is and how it applies?

Then, tell us why we should consider those who can work but won't to be unemployed.

That was the concept the whole the time. I don't make excuses. And, I happen to know these concepts and argue them, not merely make Excuses.

The Point is, it Happens. Solving for that natural capital phenomena solves for simple poverty and the expense of means tested welfare.

 

[hadit]

Because, unlike some left-wingers, they don't endlessly repeat useless and easily destroyed platitudes that don't really apply to the situation at hand.

I don't make excuses. I understand the concept or ask questions.

You most certainly do not. Understand the concept, that is.

let's start here. most people understand these concepts here:
Natural rate of unemployment - Wikipedia

Good. Now you tell us what it is and how it applies?

Then, tell us why we should consider those who can work but won't to be unemployed.

That was the concept the whole the time. I don't make excuses. And, I happen to know these concepts and argue them, not merely make Excuses.

The Point is, it Happens. Solving for that natural capital phenomena solves for simple poverty and the expense of means tested welfare.

More excuses. You still haven't bothered to tell us what the natural rate actually is, and I think I know why you won't. When it turns out that we're already UNDER that rate, it becomes very difficult for you to justify paying people who can work but won't.

Or you're simply incapable of depth beyond a phrase you heard once and thought sounded educated.