What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[hadit]

And you are taking capital out of circulation to pay the idle (by which I mean those who can work, have available jobs, but will not work).

You appeal to ignorance of economics. That is not how it works since the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. Simply circulating capital is what generates economic activity.

And the middle class, from whence comes most of the tax revenue, also spends their money, and when they save it, it is loaned out as capital and circulates anyway. You really have nothing substantive to stand on, do you realize that?

 

[danielpalos]

And impervious to logic, fact and reason. Nothing ever moves him off dead center.

how droll coming from a right winger who has no valid arguments only fallacy.

Every single time you attempt this, I paint you into a corner and you go quiet. You haven't backed up a single thing.

Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful. Is it any wonder why the left feels the need to censor right wingers who have nothing but right wing fantasy instead of Any valid arguments for rebuttal.

Someone who attempts to censor admits they can't counter what's being said.

I have been censored on this very board. Thanks for clarifying.

Who "censored" you? The only censorship that is illegal is that of the government, so far being censored on this board, means nothing.

right wing moderators have banned me several times for clarification.

For what? For violating simple and clearly stated rules? That is not censorship.

Stop whining when it happens to right wingers.

I am not whining. I am also not claiming I was censored when I violated the rules.

Right wingers were claiming that tech companies were censoring them and not because they resort to the fewest fallacies.

 

[danielpalos]

Every person who gets paid when they are not working represents a net cost to society,

Why do you say that? Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism, and that can happen with unemployment compensation.

Because every person who works provides something. And they take something for what they provide.

In your system, you only take. The capital will circulate if the people who earned it get to keep it too.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment which means not everyone can work. You need to explain why we have an endless war on poverty if all anyone needs do is work.

 

[Orangecat]

I am not the one complaining about taxes and only blaming the cost of Government on the Poor.

Neither is anyone else. Do you have ADD or something? How old are you?

 

[danielpalos]

There have been many proposals aimed at abolishing poverty via “market-friendly” measures — from Earned Income Tax Credits or Negative Tax schemes to Guaranteed Annual Income and Minimum Income Proposals. Some of these suggestions have had more Conservative backers than Liberal ones.

The typical conservative criticisms that welfare programs hurt desire to work and self-improve, or break up the nuclear family, and concern about expensive self-interested welfare bureaucracies, as well of course as more crass demagoguery about “black welfare queens” — all these have prevented for two generations creative and even serious consideration of new programs for solving political-economic-social problems. Given our new high tech economy, global trade/production and competition, and the Covid pandemic, it seems to me it is more than appropriate to look at new solutions — some of which have been discussed before but never tried.

Here is an interesting article on the “Family Assistance Plan” seriously proposed by the Nixon administration, pushed by Senator Patrick Moynihan, which unfortunately was derailed and never passed. It is a historical piece that gives insight into how we might proceed in the future. It appeared in a Foundation newsletter associated with Andrew Young, who himself proposed a “Guaranteed Annual Income” to address poverty and growing inequality when running for President:

All political solutions? An economic solution is to solve for the poverty inducing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via the most cost effective, market friendly means available under our Constitutional form of Government.

I’m sorry my earlier post originally left out the article I mentioned. Here is the link which I had trouble finding before:

Fifty Years Later, Reflecting on the Defeat of Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan

Guest Editorial by Almaz Zelleke, Associate Professor of Practice in Political Science, NYU Shanghai Fifty years ago, on August 8th, 1969, President Nixon p ...

basicincometoday.com

The Negative Income Tax was endorsed by no less a “free market conservative” than Milton Freidman himself. Conservatives have also generally endorsed programs like Earned Income Tax Credits, which are actually used today, but perhaps not with sufficient energy or scope.

Personally, I don’t see how anyone who supports Social Security or Medicare, or federal welfare assistance of any sort, or the right of our Federal government to tax, can object in principal to the programs I mentioned as being political measures in violation of our “Constitutional form of government.” We are — as I’m sure you agree — today very far from any pure capitalist system not dependent on ... law and government.

It is why I am advocating simplifying and reducing the cost of Government due to those programs by merely raising the minimum wage until those programs are not necessary.

Government programs are more expensive than simply paying more in minimum wages. The multiplier for those government programs has been estimated at around .8. In contrast even unemployment compensation has been measured with a multiplier of 2. In other words, simply raising the minimum wage and providing better access to unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States can reduce the Cost of Government while increasing economic activity as a result.

Where you completely and totally fail is the point where you ignore the reality that jacking the MW too high will just shift more people out of the work force and onto WELFARE, which is what you're actually clamoring for, despite your smokescreen of calling it UC.

You miss the point about your one trick pony problem. Equal protection of the law for UC solves it in a market friendly manner.

No, it does not. Doing what you want would change UC to a welfare program, and it would no longer work like it does. IOW, you'd kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.

No, that is your simple misunderstanding. UC can solve simple poverty by correcting for the poverty causing effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. Capital must circulate under Capitalism.

Capital does circulate under capitalism. Distributing it to other people who did not earn it does not change whether it circulates. If I keep what I earn, it will still circulate.

Insurance was developed for a reason. The concept is simple and it works. That simple concept can be applied to UC in that same manner for social purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

Every person who gets paid when they are not working represents a net cost to society,

Why do you say that? Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism, and that can happen with unemployment compensation.

Because every person who works provides something. And they take something for what they provide.

In your system, you only take. The capital will circulate if the people who earned it get to keep it too.

They never account for the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy first so they can distribute it.

You mean like for endless wars that right wingers can never win?

 

[danielpalos]

Every person who gets paid when they are not working represents a net cost to society,

Why do you say that? Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism, and that can happen with unemployment compensation.

I say that because every dollar you pay someone to be idle has to first be taken from someone else who has earned it. Do you at least acknowledge that truth? Therefore, any multiplier effect you get from paying someone is countered by the opportunity cost from taking that dollar away from someone else who would have put it to good use. Do you acknowledge that reality?

No, it doesn't. A positive multiplier means growing an economy. Why do you believe what you do?

How do you suggest the government get the money to pay you to stay home and smoke pot if it does not first tax it from someone who earned it?

Because it doesn't have to be a tax. Junk bonds not junk laws! It could be funded in a market friendly manner while still allowing people to make money on the funding, unlike with taxes.

 

[Orangecat]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment which means not everyone can work.

Reality has a natural rate of unemployment.
Capitalism exists within the parameters of said reality.
It is not the cause of unemployment, but the best system for alleviating it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you are taking capital out of circulation to pay the idle (by which I mean those who can work, have available jobs, but will not work).

You appeal to ignorance of economics. That is not how it works since the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. Simply circulating capital is what generates economic activity.

Simply circulating capital is what generates economic activity.

Production is economic activity.
Incentivizing sloth will reduce production.

 

[danielpalos]

And you are taking capital out of circulation to pay the idle (by which I mean those who can work, have available jobs, but will not work).

You appeal to ignorance of economics. That is not how it works since the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. Simply circulating capital is what generates economic activity.

And the middle class, from whence comes most of the tax revenue, also spends their money, and when they save it, it is loaned out as capital and circulates anyway. You really have nothing substantive to stand on, do you realize that?

Just quit and go on unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed if you don't have the moral fortitude. Don't whine about the Poor having the money to participate in our market economy instead of being homeless.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not the one complaining about taxes and only blaming the cost of Government on the Poor.

Neither is anyone else. Do you have ADD or something? How old are you?

Where have you been? That is all right wingers on this very board love to do. Capitalism, what is That sayeth the right wing when not socialism threads. They have no free market Capitalism solutions only their bigotry and socialism on a national and international basis.

 

[Orangecat]

Where have you been? That is all right wingers on this very board love to do. Capitalism, what is That sayeth the right wing when not socialism threads. They have no free market Capitalism solutions only their bigotry and socialism on a national and international basis.

You mean like for endless wars that right wingers can never win?

I see you've employed your psychobabble generator app again. Yawn.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment which means not everyone can work.

Reality has a natural rate of unemployment.
Capitalism exists within the parameters of said reality.
It is not the cause of unemployment, but the best system for alleviating it.

lol. Nobody takes fantastical right wingers seriously about economics. Truer command economies don't have cyclical unemployment only boom and bust capital economies have that.

 

[danielpalos]

And you are taking capital out of circulation to pay the idle (by which I mean those who can work, have available jobs, but will not work).

You appeal to ignorance of economics. That is not how it works since the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. Simply circulating capital is what generates economic activity.

Simply circulating capital is what generates economic activity.

Production is economic activity.
Incentivizing sloth will reduce production.

So is spending money. What sloth would be incentivized with an institutional upward pressure on wages? No one would be required to be in poverty merely so the Rich can get richer.

 

[hadit]

Every person who gets paid when they are not working represents a net cost to society,

Why do you say that? Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism, and that can happen with unemployment compensation.

Because every person who works provides something. And they take something for what they provide.

In your system, you only take. The capital will circulate if the people who earned it get to keep it too.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment which means not everyone can work. You need to explain why we have an endless war on poverty if all anyone needs do is work.

Everyone who can work should work. You are talking about people who would not work even if there are available jobs for them.

 

[hadit]

And you are taking capital out of circulation to pay the idle (by which I mean those who can work, have available jobs, but will not work).

You appeal to ignorance of economics. That is not how it works since the poor tend to spend most of their income sooner rather than later. Simply circulating capital is what generates economic activity.

And the middle class, from whence comes most of the tax revenue, also spends their money, and when they save it, it is loaned out as capital and circulates anyway. You really have nothing substantive to stand on, do you realize that?

Just quit and go on unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed if you don't have the moral fortitude. Don't whine about the Poor having the money to participate in our market economy instead of being homeless.

Your babble, again, has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Orangecat]

lol. Nobody takes fantastical right wingers seriously about economics. Truer command economies don't have cyclical unemployment only boom and bust capital economies have that.

I haven't conversed with you in months and you're still spouting the same nonsense. Again, how old are you?

 

[Grumblenuts]

No. The "for cause" criteria simply means you are responsible for your own life. If you choose to quit a job, you don't get paid. If an employer fires you for cause, it was your actions that got you fired. I've never known an employer to fire a good employee.

Nonsense. The last being most tellingly absurd. What you imagine "knowing" from personal experience obviously bears neither upon employment law nor common practice.

 

[danielpalos]

Every person who gets paid when they are not working represents a net cost to society,

Why do you say that? Only Capital has to circulate under Capitalism, and that can happen with unemployment compensation.

Because every person who works provides something. And they take something for what they provide.

In your system, you only take. The capital will circulate if the people who earned it get to keep it too.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment which means not everyone can work. You need to explain why we have an endless war on poverty if all anyone needs do is work.

Everyone who can work should work. You are talking about people who would not work even if there are available jobs for them.

There is no unemployment under Capitalism only underpayment.

 

[hadit]

lol. Nobody takes fantastical right wingers seriously about economics. Truer command economies don't have cyclical unemployment only boom and bust capital economies have that.

I haven't conversed with you in months and you're still spouting the same nonsense. Again, how old are you?

Seriously, a bot is more flexible. You'll see the same pattern repeated over and over. He pops up, spouts off the same handful of sayings, gets slapped down, eventually sputters total nonsense and disappears for a few weeks, then right back at it with the exact same garbage.