presonorek
Gold Member
Thanks, but I know I'm right, and we have 100 years of that logic to prove I'm right......Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.That's not what Socialism is. Stop watching Fox.Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
.Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success at least socialism has the correct objective irregardless how it is accomplished where full employment is antithetical to capitalism - the harbinger for christianity.
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.
Which again is why every single socialist system eventually results in force and violence. This is why Stalin had his gulags, Mao had his communes, North Korea has their forced labor, and so on.
Yes, any economic system can achieve full employment using violence and ruthless force.
To that end, yes full employment is antithetical to capitalism where people are free to make their own choices, and thus, they can choose to live on the streets, or choose to live on welfare if you are dumb enough to give that to them, or live on their own saved income as I am doing right now.
Full employment is a garbage goal. Freedom should be the goal, and Capitalism and Christianity both are completely in line with people being free to choose their own life.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success.Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.
an extract, derived from the classical criteria for full employment -
.
Thus the problem of full employment is one of maintaining adequate effective demand. “When effective demand is deficient,” writes Keynes, “there is underemployment of labour in the sense that there are men unemployed who would be willing to work at less than existing real wage.
.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment - the snippet above is an example of the many deviousness's of capitalism in regards for those that do seek employment.
yours is a mindless argument used for centuries as a means of suppression for the personal gain of a few in the many facets of economic models and like yours have been endorsed by christianity throughout the centuries -
as devious as the quote in the christian bible.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment
No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end.
yours is a mindless argument used for centuries ....the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment
No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end
the run-away christian ...
.
View attachment 445377
.
nothing new there. the economist is keynes.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...
.
IIThessalonians 3:10, KJV: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
.
the forgery above is not an unwillingness but a victimization christianity has harbored over the centuries by their political document disguised as a religion for the specific purpose to ensnarel humanity as the true motivation of a misguide few - andydelusion - at the expense of their unfortunate victims.
classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...
Whether the classical economic modeling is centered to full employment, or not.... doesn't matter, because that is a false method of valuing the system.
In a freedom based system, people can choose whether or not to work, and reap the rewards of their choices, whether in more wealth, or more poverty.
You want to reach full employment in a matter of weeks? Make it illegal to not work, and toss everyone who doesn't into prison or the military.
Take away their right to choose, and then you can have full employment.
And by the way, this isn't a theory, this is practically speaking what happened in the 1930s and 1940s with the draft. Contrary to popular left-wing ideology, the military spending isn't want ended the Depression. Unemployment didn't go down because the economy improved, or that wealth increased. If anything, people lived more meager lives during the war years, because everything was rationed and controlled.
What 'ended the depression' was the fact they rounded tons of people, and shipped them across the world. Many people who were not working, where shuttled into the military and shipped out. And those that were left, found work because many of the people who were working, also were shipped out, and needed replaced with those who were not.
In short, the government drafted, and forced people into labor. Naturally unemployment fell.
So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
.So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
you have gone over the edge ... just to let you know. maybe it will help.
That's why you have still have yet to counter a single point I made, while coming up with rationalizations to ignore it.
So I'm good. Thanks for your concern. Have a good one.
I understand. You love Americanism and Christianity. You can like purple and green at the same time. It doesn't mean purple is green and it certainly doesn't mean green is purple.
17th Century American thought and 1st Century Biblical thought are almost total opposites. Don't let it stress you out. You can appreciate both.