Universal Basic Income: Biden's Best Bet?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63,138
Reaction score
11,808
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
n other words, you want the US to hand out $328,000,000,000,000 every month? Thats 4 trillion dollars annually. Are you fucking high?
Do you work in the FIRE sector?
Think of UBI as QE for productive Americans.



The New York Fed, Pumping Out More than $9 Trillion in Bailouts Since September, Gets Market Advice from Giant Hedge Funds

"The New York Fed was in charge of almost all of the secret $29 trillion in bailouts during the 2007 to 2010 financial crisis.

"Congress never approved these loans or was even aware of where the money was going.

"After the Fed lost a multi-year court battle to keep its bailouts a dark secret from the American people, we learned that Morgan Stanley was one of the largest recipients, receiving a cumulative total of $2.04 trillion according to the audit conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)..."

"On top of those facilities, beginning on September 17, 2019 – months before the first case of COVID-19 was reported in the United States – the New York Fed embarked on a massive emergency repo loan operation, which had reached $6 trillion cumulatively in loans by January 6.:eek:

"(See Federal Reserve Admits It Pumped More than $6 Trillion to Wall Street in Recent Six Week Period.).
Think of UBI as QE for productive Americans.

QE is the Fed buying bonds to pump cash into the system.
What bonds are you going to sell to the Fed?

The New York Fed was in charge of almost all of the secret $29 trillion in bailouts

Secret bailouts? LOL!

Short-term loans, long ago repaid at a profit to the Fed.

the New York Fed embarked on a massive emergency repo loan operation, which had reached $6 trillion cumulatively in loans by January 6

Yup. A bank hands over collateral to the Fed and gets an overnight cash loan. It's called a repo.
The next day the bank returns the cash and the Fed returns the bonds.

The Fed’s minutes also acknowledge that its most recent actions have tallied up to “roughly $215 billion per day” flowing to trading houses on Wall Street. There were 29 business days between the last Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting and the latest Fed minutes, meaning that approximately $6.23 trillion in cumulative loans to Wall Street’s trading houses had been made in that short span of time.

Yes. Fully collateralized loans made and repaid, over and over.
Very little risk, because the Fed has the bond collateral.

Kind of the reason the Fed exists, to make sure the banking system can borrow the
funds they need when liquidity dries up. The Fed didn't lose any money, in fact, these loans
are profitable. No bank failed or had to make panic sales of securities and no depositor funds were lost.

So what's the fucking problem? Is it just that Pam and Russ are drama queens and you're ignorant?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,814
Reaction score
2,806
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
WRONG. It could be argued that QE helps the banks and rich more than mainstream American, however, unemployment rates tend to decrease and many benefit from low interest rates. The real issue here seems to be a common theme with those on the left. If the rich get richer and the poor get richer, it is still bad. Only if the "rich" get poorer and the poor get richer is it good. It all boils down to simple envy, plain and simple.
Is that why inequality increased not decreased?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,814
Reaction score
2,806
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,604
Reaction score
5,011
Points
280
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,814
Reaction score
2,806
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,604
Reaction score
5,011
Points
280
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,814
Reaction score
2,806
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,604
Reaction score
5,011
Points
280
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63,138
Reaction score
11,808
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
Incentivizing sloth and disincentivizing work will result in a negative multiplier.

Sitting on the couch in his mom's basement, he never thinks that far.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,814
Reaction score
2,806
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
It does not take money out of the economy; such a policy has the effect ensuring full employment of capital resources. It is that increase in efficiency that causes the multiplier.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,814
Reaction score
2,806
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
Incentivizing sloth and disincentivizing work will result in a negative multiplier.

Sitting on the couch in his mom's basement, he never thinks that far.
Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics?

Only Capital must circulate under Capitalism. Solving simple poverty via the simplicity of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States induces that form of full employment of capital resources.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,604
Reaction score
5,011
Points
280
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
It does not take money out of the economy; such a policy has the effect ensuring full employment of capital resources. It is that increase in efficiency that causes the multiplier.
You seem to believe the money will just materialize. Why is that? And why do you refuse to deal with the opportunity cost of taking trillions out of the economy?
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,604
Reaction score
5,011
Points
280
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
Incentivizing sloth and disincentivizing work will result in a negative multiplier.

Sitting on the couch in his mom's basement, he never thinks that far.
Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics?

Only Capital must circulate under Capitalism. Solving simple poverty via the simplicity of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States induces that form of full employment of capital resources.
We cannot take anyone seriously about economics if they believe wealth can just materialize without being taken out of the economy.

You are basically trying to fill up a swimming pool by filling a bucket at the deep end, sloshing half of it out on the ground, then pouring it into the shallow end.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,814
Reaction score
2,806
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
It does not take money out of the economy; such a policy has the effect ensuring full employment of capital resources. It is that increase in efficiency that causes the multiplier.
You seem to believe the money will just materialize. Why is that?
We have a Commerce clause and a central bank. Any subscription to capitalism will do.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,604
Reaction score
5,011
Points
280
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
It does not take money out of the economy; such a policy has the effect ensuring full employment of capital resources. It is that increase in efficiency that causes the multiplier.
You seem to believe the money will just materialize. Why is that?
We have a Commerce clause and a central bank. Any subscription to capitalism will do.
So you promote inflationary printing of fiat currency of no real value. That's why your incessant cries for a higher MW will never, ever be satisfied, because inflation will always destroy any increase in value. At this point, you're basically advocating that someone go into all the databases of all the banks and just multiply every account balance by 10. That would fix everything, wouldn't it? Kind of like setting the MW to $100/hr, another thing you won't touch.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,814
Reaction score
2,806
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
Incentivizing sloth and disincentivizing work will result in a negative multiplier.

Sitting on the couch in his mom's basement, he never thinks that far.
Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics?

Only Capital must circulate under Capitalism. Solving simple poverty via the simplicity of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States induces that form of full employment of capital resources.
We cannot take anyone seriously about economics if they believe wealth can just materialize without being taken out of the economy.

You are basically trying to fill up a swimming pool by filling a bucket at the deep end, sloshing half of it out on the ground, then pouring it into the shallow end.
You would need to appeal to ignorance of economics, to do that.

In my opinion, QE put out a lot of fiat money; when was it recovered? Ensuring more people are circulating that existing QE money means less inflationary tendency due to higher paid labor creating more in demand and generating more in tax revenue.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,814
Reaction score
2,806
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
It is that increase in efficiency that causes the multiplier.
Paying whiny twats to sit in their basement decreases efficiency, especially when
paid for by taxing the efficient.
Not when they circulate that money. They pay consumer taxes, rent, etc. with it. Other people benefit when even the Poor can circulate Other Peoples' Money.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,814
Reaction score
2,806
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
It does not take money out of the economy; such a policy has the effect ensuring full employment of capital resources. It is that increase in efficiency that causes the multiplier.
You seem to believe the money will just materialize. Why is that?
We have a Commerce clause and a central bank. Any subscription to capitalism will do.
So you promote inflationary printing of fiat currency of no real value. That's why your incessant cries for a higher MW will never, ever be satisfied, because inflation will always destroy any increase in value. At this point, you're basically advocating that someone go into all the databases of all the banks and just multiply every account balance by 10. That would fix everything, wouldn't it? Kind of like setting the MW to $100/hr, another thing you won't touch.
What doesn't cause inflation? Simply blaming the Poor and claiming wages will be inflationary is meaningless since wages should outpace inflation on an Institutional basis even if socialism is required to accomplish it
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,604
Reaction score
5,011
Points
280
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
Incentivizing sloth and disincentivizing work will result in a negative multiplier.

Sitting on the couch in his mom's basement, he never thinks that far.
Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics?

Only Capital must circulate under Capitalism. Solving simple poverty via the simplicity of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States induces that form of full employment of capital resources.
We cannot take anyone seriously about economics if they believe wealth can just materialize without being taken out of the economy.

You are basically trying to fill up a swimming pool by filling a bucket at the deep end, sloshing half of it out on the ground, then pouring it into the shallow end.
You would need to appeal to ignorance of economics, to do that.

In my opinion, QE put out a lot of fiat money; when was it recovered? Ensuring more people are circulating that existing QE money means less inflationary tendency due to higher paid labor creating more in demand and generating more in tax revenue.
It did that, and was needed at that time to prevent a much greater collapse of the economy. It is not, however, a good strategy for the long term precisely because it does cause inflation. Higher paid labor also causes inflation unless the job represents increased value, which is why we don't believe we can conquer poverty by just setting the MW to $100/hr.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top