What is the goal of capitalism?

[Red Front]

Not everybody, eh Dagosa ?

Stupid capitalists. The smart ones know better and they fund the greenies. It's like capitalists doing business with two opposing sides in a war. Profiting off of both. They don't give a shit, it's all about profits. Private capital accumulation. Who cares if the world gets too hot and humanity has to move underground to survive or leave Earth? I watched this movie yesterday:

​

It was informative.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stupid capitalists. The smart ones know better and they fund the greenies. It's like capitalists doing business with two opposing sides in a war. Profiting off of both. They don't give a shit, it's all about profits. Private capital accumulation. Who cares if the world gets too hot and humanity has to move underground to survive and leave Earth? I watched this movie yesterday:

​

It was informative.

I don't see how Big Oil funding green idiocy would benefit Big Oil.

Can you?

 

[Red Front]

Capitalism makes finding a cure even less likely.

Capitalism made a cure for hepatitis C possible. I haven't seen a hepatitis C cure from communism.

It's actually the government that funds cures, not capitalism.

So why haven't the commie governments funded a cancer cure yet?

A couple of weeks ago Todd and I were discussing how Walmart pays so little that many of its employees have to rely on government assistance, like food stamps.

Are you telling me that Walmart, besides providing quality goods at reasonable prices, also reduces the amount of government assistance its employees need?

The government is essentially subsidizing Walmart's workforce, despite it being one of the wealthiest companies in the world.

How wealthy are they?

Its CEO makes 1000+ times more than the lowest-paid employee in their stores.

What does the lowest-paid employee do? How much is he paid? What is the proper ratio?

I proposed that the government can offer all Americans an employment guarantee. If you can't find a job in the private sector, you have a job in the public sector, in government.

That's a proposal alright. A pretty stupid one.
How much will these new government employees make?

Well if the US government's resources are crucial in the development of pharmaceuticals/cures for disease

What government resources cured Hep C?

We don't need rich capitalists like Todd. Why is Todd so emotionally involved in this discussion?

We don't need commie failure here; we saw what it did in eastern Europe.

First, regarding the cure for Hepatitis C, it's crucial to understand that the development of Sofosbuvir, the active ingredient in drugs like Sovaldi and Harvoni, didn't occur in a vacuum. Indeed, it was built on years of publicly funded research. The key technologies that made the drug possible were pioneered in academic labs supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The drug's development is a testament to the importance of sustained public investment in scientific research. Michael Houghton, one of the scientists who won a Nobel Prize for discovering Hepatitis C, conducted his research at Chiron Corporation, but the initial understanding and sequencing of the virus was the result of years of research funded by the public sector.

Libertarians like you, conveniently accuse me of proposing "commie" policies for getting the government involved in anything and when I point out how the government involves itself in much of our R&D and could organize production without the need for the private sector, you "correct me" by letting me know that just because the government is involved that doesn't make it "commie". Amazing. Make up your mind.

Next, as for Walmart and government assistance, the point I was making is that many Walmart employees rely on government assistance because their wages are not high enough to meet their basic needs, even while working full-time. Walmart's low prices partly depend on keeping wages low. However, the social cost of this is transferred to the government and taxpayers, who subsidize these low wages through food stamps and other forms of assistance.

In terms of Walmart's wealth, as of 2021, Walmart was the world's largest company by revenue, with over $500 billion. The CEO's compensation was over 1,000 times that of the median worker. While it's difficult to dictate a "proper" ratio, many critics argue this level of disparity is harmful for both societal cohesion and economic health.

"Take for example Walmart Inc. CEO C. McMillon, who earned $25.7 million in 2022, or 1,013 times the $25,335 median income of a Walmart employee. The world's largest retailer, which was founded in 1945 and employs 2.1 million workers, has the lowest CEO-to-worker pay ratio of these 22 companies.May 24, 2023"

CEOs of Major US Companies Who Are Paid 1000 Times More Than Their Employees – 24/7 Wall St. employees/#:~:text=Take%20for%20example%20Walmart%20Inc,ratio%20of%20these%2022%20companies.

Finally, regarding the government employment guarantee proposal, the idea isn't to create unnecessary jobs but to provide a safety net to ensure no one is left without a means to make a living. It also would put upward pressure on wages in the private sector, as they would need to compete with the public sector. Hello? You, capitalists, love scarcity to create desperate people looking for the job you're offering. A desperate "labor market" = lower wages.

As for as how much these employees would make, that would depend on the specifics of the proposal, but the goal would be a living wage, enough to meet basic needs without needing government food stamps.

 

[Red Front]

I don't see how Big Oil funding green idiocy would benefit Big Oil.

Can you?

Are you ignoring what I post?

"Fossil fuel companies such as Atlantic Richfield were also donors to environmental organizations with clear anti-nuclear stances, such as Friends of the Earth. Groups like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council are receiving grants from other fossil fuel companies."

Anti-nuclear movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One example of many.

 

[Red Front]

I don't see how Big Oil funding green idiocy would benefit Big Oil.

Can you?

Nuclear has a much better case than solar panels. Any dimwit can look at the data and see that the solution is nuclear, not solar panels and batteries. Heck, we can't even switch to electric vehicles, at a mass scale, until we go nuclear. As soon as we go nuke, drawing our electricity from nuclear plants, that's the end of big oil and gas. We can't get rid of petrol-guzzling vehicles until we have an abundant, clean energy source. That's nuclear, not solar panels or windmills (Don Quixote).

The fossil fuel industry funds the greenies, in their effort against nuclear and actually hurt the greenies, because solar panels, with batteries and windmills, aren't going to replace big oil, gas and coal. It's not going to happen anytime soon. Nuclear will do it.

When we have factories in space and we can manufacture solar panels in zero gravity that are 10x more efficient than the ones we have now, then maybe solar will become a viable, clean source of energy at a national scale. Solar panels and batteries have to become more efficient and that won't happen until we have factories in zero gravity. It might take 50, 60 years before we have large-scale production in LEO. We need nuclear and the fossil fuel industry will do whatever it can to demonize it and stop it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First, regarding the cure for Hepatitis C, it's crucial to understand that the development of Sofosbuvir, the active ingredient in drugs like Sovaldi and Harvoni, didn't occur in a vacuum. Indeed, it was built on years of publicly funded research. The key technologies that made the drug possible were pioneered in academic labs supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The drug's development is a testament to the importance of sustained public investment in scientific research. Michael Houghton, one of the scientists who won a Nobel Prize for discovering Hepatitis C, conducted his research at Chiron Corporation, but the initial understanding and sequencing of the virus was the result of years of research funded by the public sector.

Libertarians like you, conveniently accused me of proposing "commie" policies for getting the government involved in anything and when I point out how the government involves itself in much of our R&D and could organize production without the need for the private sector, you "correct me" by letting me know that just because the government is involved that doesn't make it "commie". Amazing. Make up your mind.

Next, as for Walmart and government assistance, the point I was making is that many Walmart employees rely on government assistance because their wages are not high enough to meet their basic needs, even while working full-time. Walmart's low prices partly depend on keeping wages low. However, the social cost of this is transferred to the government and taxpayers, who subsidize these low wages through food stamps and other forms of assistance.

In terms of Walmart's wealth, as of 2021, Walmart was the world's largest company by revenue, with over $500 billion. The CEO's compensation was over 1,000 times that of the median worker. While it's difficult to dictate a "proper" ratio, many critics argue this level of disparity is harmful for both societal cohesion and economic health.

"Take for example Walmart Inc. CEO C. McMillon, who earned $25.7 million in 2022, or 1,013 times the $25,335 median income of a Walmart employee. The world's largest retailer, which was founded in 1945 and employs 2.1 million workers, has the lowest CEO-to-worker pay ratio of these 22 companies.May 24, 2023"

CEOs of Major US Companies Who Are Paid 1000 Times More Than Their Employees – 24/7 Wall St. employees/#:~:text=Take%20for%20example%20Walmart%20Inc,ratio%20of%20these%2022%20companies.

Finally, regarding the government employment guarantee proposal, the idea isn't to create unnecessary jobs but to provide a safety net to ensure no one is left without a means to make a living. It also would put upward pressure on wages in the private sector, as they would need to compete with the public sector. Hello? You, capitalists, love scarcity to create desperate people looking for the job you're offering. A desperate "labor market" = lower wages.

As for how much these employees would make, that would depend on the specifics of the proposal, but the goal would be a living wage, enough to meet basic needs without needing government food stamps.

In terms of Walmart's wealth, as of 2021, Walmart was the world's largest company by revenue, with over $500 billion.

But revenue isn't profit.

"Take for example Walmart Inc. CEO C. McMillon, who earned $25.7 million in 2022, or 1,013 times the $25,335 median income of a Walmart employee.

$25.7 million for a corporation with over $600 billion in revenue doesn't sound outrageous.

Finally, regarding the government employment guarantee proposal, the idea isn't to create unnecessary jobs but to provide a safety net to ensure no one is left without a means to make a living.

Creating unnecessary jobs is an expensive and wasteful way to provide a safety net.

It also would put upward pressure on wages in the private sector, as they would need to compete with the public sector.

What would the extra taxes and government debt do to wages in the private sector?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you ignoring what I post?

"Fossil fuel companies such as Atlantic Richfield were also donors to environmental organizations with clear anti-nuclear stances, such as Friends of the Earth. Groups like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council are receiving grants from other fossil fuel companies."

Anti-nuclear movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One example of many.

You made it sound like they were sending money to the greens to badmouth oil.
If your only point was spending their own money on their own anti-nuke campaign, that's different.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nuclear has a much better case than solar panels. Any dimwit can look at the data and see that the solution is nuclear, not solar panels and batteries. Heck, we can't even switch to electric vehicles, at a mass scale, until we go nuclear. As soon as we go nuke, drawing our electricity from nuclear plants, that's the end of big oil and gas. We can't get rid of petrol-guzzling vehicles until we have an abundant, clean energy source. That's nuclear, not solar panels or windmills (Don Quixote).

The fossil fuel industry funds the greenies, in their effort against nuclear and actually hurt the greenies, because solar panels, with batteries and windmills, aren't going to replace big oil, gas and coal. It's not going to happen anytime soon. Nuclear will do it.

When we have factories in space and we can manufacture solar panels in zero gravity that are 10x more efficient than the ones we have now, then maybe solar will become a viable, clean source of energy at a national scale. Solar panels and batteries have to become more efficient and that won't happen until we have factories in zero gravity. It might take 50, 60 years before we have large-scale production in LEO. We need nuclear and the fossil fuel industry will do whatever it can to demonize it and stop it.

Nuclear has a much better case than solar panels. Any dimwit can look at the data and see that the solution is nuclear, not solar panels and batteries.

The green dimwits can't see that solution.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Execept when organized and highly selfish parties take over certain areas of the market and slam the door on any noobs coming in and setting up shop. Just look at Walmart in the early 2000's. Small businesses were dropping like flies...and it had nothing to do with socialism. Walmart was moving into small towns and took over neighborhood after neighborhood. Only another megacorporation could possibly compete with that. Is that what we want? Colossal megacorporations clashing for supremacy in the name of capitalism? If they have had their way without having to follow rules of fair play, small businesses wouldn't have a chance.

Ya gotta take the good with the bad.

 

[Red Front]

You made it sound like they were sending money to the greens to badmouth oil.
If your only point was spending their own money on their own anti-nuke campaign, that's different.

I never said that. They know that solar panels, batteries, and Don Quixote, are not enough to replace big oil, gas, and coal. The arch menace of big oil is nuclear. They use the greenies against nuclear, by demonizing it. Spreading lies about nuclear energy and how it's dangerous and can lead to nuclear weapons proliferation..etc. They also fund policy and legislation, that undermines the large-scale adoption of nuclear.

 

[Mexicano]

In response to your points, I'd like to point out that our current understanding of accounting is framed within the constraints of the capitalist economic system, which regards money as a universally recognized unit of account. However, envisioning an alternative socio-economic order, such as a communist society, necessitates a rethinking of our understanding of accounting. In this new society, accounting would prioritize the management of resources to meet societal needs over individual, private profits (capital accumulation). In a high-tech, automated society, logistics and resource management can function efficiently without the need for monetary transactions. Our "accounting" amounts to data acquisition and parsing/analysis (a function of logistics).

Well, that's my point the mechanisms of how this system works still have to be defined. Hence we don't really know if it will work or not or if there is a feasible solution.
And since economy is a science it needs empirical data to be verified. Hence a moneyless society remains as an unproven hypothesis.

On the topic of automation and AI, I align with thinkers like Paul Mason, who argue that these advancements will completely disrupt the very foundation and structure of capitalism. With the digitization of goods and automation, we will observe a decline in the relevance of money, leading to a shift towards other forms of economic organization, like communism.

Yes, they will disrupt capitalism, at least the version where firms are in charge of providing all goods and services. That doesn't mean a good outcome is guaranteed.
When industrial capitalism irrupted early capitalism the result was revolutions and wars over resources and markets.

Contrary to your assertion that we are far from a post-scarcity society, I would contend that we are closer to it than you assert. The pace of technological advancement has been transformative, and there is significant potential for automation and AI to create an abundance in production (intelligent robots and AI work 24/7).

We are very far, because we are thriving on borrowed (oil) energy. Cheap oil will run out or global warming will catch with us. We have to switch to renewables / nuclear, but that is a massive undertaking. Making the transition means that energy production will have to stagnate for a while and resources will have to be diverted into infrastructure ( solar cells , wind turbines, hydraulic storage , batteries).

All production is limited by available energy, the transition means we will have to be frugal with our energy consumption during the next decades, unless we discover how to get energy from fussion.

In terms of the transition from capitalism to socialism and eventually communism, my argument rests on Marx and Engels' theory of historical materialism. I maintain that the advent of AI and automation will dramatically hasten and pretty much ensure this transition, as wage labor's role decreases due to technological innovation.

NO WAGE LABOR (OR NOT ENOUGH OF IT) = NO PAYING CONSUMERS (OR NOT ENOUGH CUSTOMERS) = NO MARKET (NOT ENOUGH OF A MARKET WORTH INVESTING IN) = DEATH OF CAPITALISM = BIRTH OF HIGH-COMMUNISM.

Not necesarily, there are many possible outcomes.
1) UBI is implemented... it is the easy way out and is full of things that can go wrong, but it will keep capitalism going.
2) We run out of cheap oil. We get less energy and have to transition into a low-energy consumption society ( this would be a forceful transition into green energy).
3) Someone powerful enough starts to get creative when he determines there are too few resources and too many people and decides it is time to get rid of the extra people... a virus of unknown origin suddenly appears and spreads throughout the planet causing havoc among the population... I get a deja-vu from this scenario.

Here are some resources you should consider studying:

• Marx, K. (1875) "Critique of the Gotha Programme".
• Mason, P. (2015) "PostCapitalism: A Guide to our Future".
• Ford, M. (2015) "Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future".
• Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1848) "The Communist Manifesto".

Interesting list, I've already read the "Communist Manifesto" in fact it is the source of my critique.

 

[Red Front]

In terms of Walmart's wealth, as of 2021, Walmart was the world's largest company by revenue, with over $500 billion.

But revenue isn't profit.

"Take for example Walmart Inc. CEO C. McMillon, who earned $25.7 million in 2022, or 1,013 times the $25,335 median income of a Walmart employee.

$25.7 million for a corporation with over $600 billion in revenue doesn't sound outrageous.

Finally, regarding the government employment guarantee proposal, the idea isn't to create unnecessary jobs but to provide a safety net to ensure no one is left without a means to make a living.

Creating unnecessary jobs is an expensive and wasteful way to provide a safety net.

It also would put upward pressure on wages in the private sector, as they would need to compete with the public sector.

What would the extra taxes and government debt do to wages in the private sector?

While it's true that Walmart's revenue isn't directly synonymous with profit, the massive disparity between the CEO's pay and the median income of their employees underscores an obscene level of wealth inequality within the company. Not to mention, these wage disparities force many Walmart workers onto government assistance programs. This effectively means that the public is subsidizing Walmart's low-wage policies. The irony is rather astonishing and this level of corporate welfare should not exist for people working full-time, especially for a company as wealthy as Walmart.

Your assertion that a guaranteed job program would lead to the creation of 'unnecessary jobs' is false. We have urgent needs in our communities, from infrastructure development and repair to guarding the border, helping our government's border patrol. This isn't about creating jobs for the sake of it; it's about addressing critical needs while also ensuring every American has access to meaningful employment.

And let's put to rest the idea that increased taxation would be necessary to fund such a program. The U.S. government has the capacity to employ individuals without having to increase taxes. We have a sovereign currency, and as long as the country's productive capacity (i.e., our GDP) isn't "maxed out", we can create the needed money without causing inflation. The money spent on these workers' wages would be injected back into the economy, stimulating local businesses and promoting economic growth. When we invest in our national infrastructure, we increase production. We make America more productive. Make America Great Again..right? We have to invest in America.

Lastly, the issue of automation underscores the urgency of these proposals. The impending wave of automation and artificial intelligence threatens to displace a significant portion of the workforce. Turning a blind eye to this reality does a disservice to millions of workers who risk being left in the cold. The big-money capitalist elites know that there is a "tech apocalypse" in our not-too-distant future. Why are billionaires now talking about giving Americans a UBI government handout? Because they know that advanced automation and artificial intelligence, replace wage labor. It eliminates the need for human labor, especially waged labor. Labor that earns a wage. Hear what the big-money elites are saying:

​

 

[BothWings]

Greater selection, lower prices. The humanity!!!

Only the truly short-sighted can't see the real price we pay for "lower prices".

Ya gotta take the good with the bad.

If corporations continue with their trend of buying our government out from under us there won't be any good left to go with the bad. I am all for small and medium sized business. But massive global corporations are ruining the planet. Sure some people get rich from it and some manage to grab some crumbs that fall from the beast's mouth. But all at what cost to the planet? If eventually nobody has any choice but to work for giant companies who pay the government to make us subservient, what's left? It's a long process and people have been fighting back along the way but so far it appears to be a losing battle.

 

[Red Front]

Well, that's my point the mechanisms of how this system works still have to be defined. Hence we don't really know if it will work or not or if there is a feasible solution.
And since economy is a science it needs empirical data to be verified. Hence a moneyless society remains as an unproven hypothesis.


Yes, they will disrupt capitalism, at least the version where firms are in charge of providing all goods and services. That doesn't mean a good outcome is guaranteed.
When industrial capitalism irrupted early capitalism the result was revolutions and wars over resources and markets.


We are very far, because we are thriving on borrowed (oil) energy. Cheap oil will run out or global warming will catch with us. We have to switch to renewables / nuclear, but that is a massive undertaking. Making the transition means that energy production will have to stagnate for a while and resources will have to be diverted into infrastructure ( solar cells , wind turbines, hydraulic storage , batteries).

All production is limited by available energy, the transition means we will have to be frugal with our energy consumption during the next decades, unless we discover how to get energy from fussion.


Not necesarily, there are many possible outcomes.
1) UBI is implemented... it is the easy way out and is full of things that can go wrong, but it will keep capitalism going.
2) We run out of cheap oil. We get less energy and have to transition into a low-energy consumption society ( this would be a forceful transition into green energy).
3) Someone powerful enough starts to get creative when he determines there are too few resources and too many people and decides it is time to get rid of the extra people... a virus of unknown origin suddenly appears and spreads throughout the planet causing havoc among the population... I get a deja-vu from this scenario.


Interesting list, I've already read the "Communist Manifesto" in fact it is the source of my critique.

Well, that's my point the mechanisms of how this system works still have to be defined.

You mean we haven't fully defined every detail of how to replace markets with a modern, highly computerized, automated system of production and logistics? We don't have to have every detail fully written out before we can assess its viability and our capacity to implement it. We can get a good idea based on what we already know. The ploy of pretending there's a perpetual mystery and uncertainty to the plausibility of implementing a non-profit, marketless system of production is disingenuous at best. This isn't rocket science.

Hence we don't really know if it will work or not or if there is a feasible solution.

And since economy is a science it needs empirical data to be verified. Hence a moneyless society remains as an unproven hypothesis.

The advent of advanced automation and AI has opened the door to new possibilities, including the potential for a high-tech, non-profit system of production. While this remains largely untested at a national scale, it's not without precedent: consider open-source software, which is created, maintained, and improved by communities of programmers without monetary incentive.

Dismissing the possibility of a moneyless society because it hasn't been empirically tested is a bit absurd. It's akin to saying we should never have tried to fly because, for millennia, empirical evidence suggested humans couldn't. The process of human advancement is often about challenging the perceived limits of possibility. With careful planning, ongoing innovation, and a collective will, there's no reason why we can't explore alternative economic systems that better serve our needs.

 

[dblack]

You mean we haven't fully defined every detail of how to replace markets with a modern, highly computerized, automated system of production and logistics? We don't have to have every detail fully written out before we can assess its viability and our capacity to implement it. We can get a good idea based on what we already know. The ploy of pretending there's a perpetual mystery and uncertainty to the plausibility of implementing a non-profit, marketless system of production is disingenuous at best. This isn't rocket science.

View attachment 809857​

The advent of advanced automation and AI has opened the door to new possibilities, including the potential for a high-tech, non-profit system of production. While this remains largely untested at a national scale, it's not without precedent: consider open-source software, which is created, maintained, and improved by communities of programmers without monetary incentive.

Dismissing the possibility of a moneyless society because it hasn't been empirically tested is a bit absurd. It's akin to saying we should never have tried to fly because, for millennia, empirical evidence suggested humans couldn't. The process of human advancement is often about challenging the perceived limits of possibility. With careful planning, ongoing innovation, and a collective will, there's no reason why we can't explore alternative economic systems that better serve our needs.

Does anyone actually read all this propaganda?

 

[Red Front]

Does anyone actually read all this propaganda?

Yep.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Only the truly short-sighted can't see the real price we pay for "lower prices".

If corporations continue with their trend of buying our government out from under us there won't be any good left to go with the bad. I am all for small and medium sized business. But massive global corporations are ruining the planet. Sure some people get rich from it and some manage to grab some crumbs that fall from the beast's mouth. But all at what cost to the planet? If eventually nobody has any choice but to work for giant companies who pay the government to make us subservient, what's left? It's a long process and people have been fighting back along the way but so far it appears to be a losing battle.

We're much cleaner than we were in the past.
You need to reign in China and India,they're the worst polluters on the planet.

 

[BothWings]

We're much cleaner than we were in the past.
You need to reign in China and India,they're the worst polluters on the planet.

Were among their biggest customers. That means we're feeding the monster and turning into exactly what you say.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While it's true that Walmart's revenue isn't directly synonymous with profit, the massive disparity between the CEO's pay and the median income of their employees underscores an obscene level of wealth inequality within the company. Not to mention, these wage disparities force many Walmart workers onto government assistance programs. This effectively means that the public is subsidizing Walmart's low-wage policies. The irony is rather astonishing and this level of corporate welfare should not exist for people working full-time, especially for a company as wealthy as Walmart.

Your assertion that a guaranteed job program would lead to the creation of 'unnecessary jobs' is false. We have urgent needs in our communities, from infrastructure development and repair to guarding the border, helping our government's border patrol. This isn't about creating jobs for the sake of it; it's about addressing critical needs while also ensuring every American has access to meaningful employment.

And let's put to rest the idea that increased taxation would be necessary to fund such a program. The U.S. government has the capacity to employ individuals without having to increase taxes. We have a sovereign currency, and as long as the country's productive capacity (i.e., our GDP) isn't "maxed out", we can create the needed money without causing inflation. The money spent on these workers' wages would be injected back into the economy, stimulating local businesses and promoting economic growth. When we invest in our national infrastructure, we increase production. We make America more productive. Make America Great Again..right? We have to invest in America.

Lastly, the issue of automation underscores the urgency of these proposals. The impending wave of automation and artificial intelligence threatens to displace a significant portion of the workforce. Turning a blind eye to this reality does a disservice to millions of workers who risk being left in the cold. The big-money capitalist elites know that there is a "tech apocalypse" in our not-too-distant future. Why are billionaires now talking about giving Americans a UBI government handout? Because they know that advanced automation and artificial intelligence, replace wage labor. It eliminates the need for human labor, especially waged labor. Labor that earns a wage. Hear what the big-money elites are saying:

​

Your assertion that a guaranteed job program would lead to the creation of 'unnecessary jobs' is false.

People who can't get a job in the real economy, getting a guaranteed government job aren't going to be the best or the brightest. Of course, the make-work jobs they are given will be mostly unnecessary. How much are they going to be paid?

And let's put to rest the idea that increased taxation would be necessary to fund such a program. The U.S. government has the capacity to employ individuals without having to increase taxes. We have a sovereign currency, and as long as the country's productive capacity (i.e., our GDP) isn't "maxed out", we can create the needed money without causing inflation.

What would be worse than creating millions of unnecessary jobs? Paying for them with
freshly printed money. When these unneeded workers spend their freshly printed money,
is their competition for limited goods and services going to cause prices for those limited goods and services to rise?

After all, they aren't creating any of those useful goods and services.
Sounds like the perfect storm for high inflation.

When we invest in our national infrastructure, we increase production. We make America more productive.

You want these clowns to build roads and bridges? LOL!
That's one way to reduce the use of private cars, making the roads and bridges more dangerous.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The irony is rather astonishing and this level of corporate welfare should not exist for people working full-time, especially for a company as wealthy as Walmart.

Ironically, Walmart could always fire them and increase the amount of welfare they receive.