The blueprint for prosperity

[danielpalos]

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.

We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty. We should have no homeless.

 

[hadit]

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.

We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty. We should have no homeless.

And again, what's the rate?

 

[P@triot]

And, I happen to know these concepts...

No you don’t. You just said socialism is “the power to do something”.

 

[P@triot]

We should have no homeless.

Says who? Where is that written? You’re so profoundly ignorant of these issues that you don’t even grasp that someone people choose to be homeless. They have family members that will take them in. There are shelters that will take them in. They choose to live the way they do.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty. We should have no homeless.

And again, what's the rate?

How many homeless?

 

[danielpalos]

We should have no homeless.

Says who? Where is that written? You’re so profoundly ignorant of these issues that you don’t even grasp that someone people choose to be homeless. They have family members that will take them in. There are shelters that will take them in. They choose to live the way they do.

charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.

 

[P@triot]

We should have no homeless.

Says who? Where is that written? You’re so profoundly ignorant of these issues that you don’t even grasp that someone people choose to be homeless. They have family members that will take them in. There are shelters that will take them in. They choose to live the way they do.

charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.

Nobody asked that. Why do you avoid simple and direct questions in every post? Because they prove you are clueless.

 

[P@triot]

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

No, snowflake. We are for the free market. Which flawlessly balances itself with competition that results in the perfect and proper wages for everyone, innovation, efficient production, and affordable products.

The polar opposite of what idiotic left-wing policy produces.

 

[P@triot]

I don't appeal to ignorance.

No...but apparently ignorance appeals to you.

 

[P@triot]

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.

Nobody asked that. Your refusal to answer a simple question proves you made it all up. Game over.

 

[hadit]

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.

We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty. We should have no homeless.

And again, what's the rate?

How many homeless?

Are you SERIOUSLY going full amateur hour? Never go full amateur hour. I think we've arrived at the pigeon on the chessboard stage with this one.

 

[danielpalos]

We should have no homeless.

Says who? Where is that written? You’re so profoundly ignorant of these issues that you don’t even grasp that someone people choose to be homeless. They have family members that will take them in. There are shelters that will take them in. They choose to live the way they do.

charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.

Nobody asked that. Why do you avoid simple and direct questions in every post? Because they prove you are clueless.

who would be homeless if they could apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

 

[danielpalos]

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

No, snowflake. We are for the free market. Which flawlessly balances itself with competition that results in the perfect and proper wages for everyone, innovation, efficient production, and affordable products.

The polar opposite of what idiotic left-wing policy produces.

walls and trade wars are Not, free market.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't appeal to ignorance.

No...but apparently ignorance appeals to you.

I resort to the fewest fallacies for that.

Unlike the Right Wing.

 

[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.

Nobody asked that. Your refusal to answer a simple question proves you made it all up. Game over.

Compensation for a natural rate of capital unemployment is a solution. Who's fault is it, the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty. We should have no homeless.

And again, what's the rate?

How many homeless?

Are you SERIOUSLY going full amateur hour? Never go full amateur hour. I think we've arrived at the pigeon on the chessboard stage with this one.

We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.

 

[hadit]

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.

We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty. We should have no homeless.

And again, what's the rate?

How many homeless?

Are you SERIOUSLY going full amateur hour? Never go full amateur hour. I think we've arrived at the pigeon on the chessboard stage with this one.

We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.

Now you're just trying to stay relevant by having the last (nonsense) word.

 

[Faun]

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”.

Which is why I thanked President Clinton and not Hillary. That you even refer to her has “Hitlery” shows you have the mentality of a 4 year old and that she still lives rent free in your head.

 

[danielpalos]

We are discussing actual solutions to simple poverty. We should have no homeless.

And again, what's the rate?

How many homeless?

Are you SERIOUSLY going full amateur hour? Never go full amateur hour. I think we've arrived at the pigeon on the chessboard stage with this one.

We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.

Now you're just trying to stay relevant by having the last (nonsense) word.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

 

[hadit]

And again, what's the rate?

How many homeless?

Are you SERIOUSLY going full amateur hour? Never go full amateur hour. I think we've arrived at the pigeon on the chessboard stage with this one.

We should have no homeless problem in our First World economy.

Now you're just trying to stay relevant by having the last (nonsense) word.

There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine.

Yet you keep coming up with them.