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

OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,730
Reaction score
3,189
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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?
Old enough to have more than ad hominems. How old are you?
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,730
Reaction score
3,189
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
Says right wingers with nothing but ad hominems while they think their right wing fantasy is a valid argument.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,536
Reaction score
5,843
Points
280
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.
Bull. You claim businesses that have to lay off workers because they can't afford them should just keep them on and pay them more? This ranks right up there with believing we could just set the MW at $100/hr and eliminate poverty with no ill effects to the economy for stupidity.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,730
Reaction score
3,189
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
Bull. You claim businesses that have to lay off workers because they can't afford them should just keep them on and pay them more? This ranks right up there with believing we could just set the MW at $100/hr and eliminate poverty with no ill effects to the economy for stupidity.
I am claiming greed is Good under Capitalism and that anyone can be bought.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,536
Reaction score
5,843
Points
280
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.
Says right wingers with nothing but ad hominems while they think their right wing fantasy is a valid argument.
So prove me wrong. Say something that's not one of your handful of sayings that has actual depth and meaning and displays a basic understanding of real world economics. Here's your opportunity, don't waste it.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,536
Reaction score
5,843
Points
280
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.
Bull. You claim businesses that have to lay off workers because they can't afford them should just keep them on and pay them more? This ranks right up there with believing we could just set the MW at $100/hr and eliminate poverty with no ill effects to the economy for stupidity.
I am claiming greed is Good under Capitalism and that anyone can be bought.
You're claiming no such thing. You're just making crap up and talking in circles.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,730
Reaction score
3,189
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
Says right wingers with nothing but ad hominems while they think their right wing fantasy is a valid argument.
So prove me wrong. Say something that's not one of your handful of sayings that has actual depth and meaning and displays a basic understanding of real world economics. Here's your opportunity, don't waste it.
My first post already said it. Y'all have nothing but ad hominems and other typical right wing fantasy. Why should I believe you now?

But, here goes nothing. I am saying employment is at-will. Equal protection of the law regarding that concept can solve simple poverty and lower the cost of Government for less efficient social services.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,730
Reaction score
3,189
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
Bull. You claim businesses that have to lay off workers because they can't afford them should just keep them on and pay them more? This ranks right up there with believing we could just set the MW at $100/hr and eliminate poverty with no ill effects to the economy for stupidity.
I am claiming greed is Good under Capitalism and that anyone can be bought.
You're claiming no such thing. You're just making crap up and talking in circles.
If Mr. Projector says it, it must be the "gospel Truth"?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
64,374
Reaction score
12,630
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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.
So is spending money.

No, spending money is not production.

What sloth would be incentivized

Idiots like you, sitting on the couch and getting paid.
 
OP
D

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
64,730
Reaction score
3,189
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
So is spending money.

No, spending money is not production.

What sloth would be incentivized

Idiots like you, sitting on the couch and getting paid.
Investment is not production either? Nor is savings?

I would still be spending money in my local economy and contributing to the multiplier effect.
 

BlackSand

Nobody
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
15,316
Reaction score
5,050
Points
380
Location
Wherever I May Roam
Says the persons who only have ad hominems instead of any valid arguments for rebuttal.
The rebuttal was simple, yet you missed it still the same.

You do not require my acceptance or agreement to petition your local or state government for what you want.
If you cannot achieve that, then you are a failure ... There is no point in arguing with that.

.
And, if I win, it must mean y'all were failures with nothing but ad hominems and hypocrisy?
If you petition your local or state government to provide the services you desire, and win ... I wouldn't give a damn one way or another, nor would I lose anything.
That's the point you mental midget ... :thup:

.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,536
Reaction score
5,843
Points
280
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.
Says right wingers with nothing but ad hominems while they think their right wing fantasy is a valid argument.
So prove me wrong. Say something that's not one of your handful of sayings that has actual depth and meaning and displays a basic understanding of real world economics. Here's your opportunity, don't waste it.
My first post already said it. Y'all have nothing but ad hominems and other typical right wing fantasy. Why should I believe you now?

But, here goes nothing. I am saying employment is at-will. Equal protection of the law regarding that concept can solve simple poverty and lower the cost of Government for less efficient social services.
What do you mean by "employment is at-will"? Do you mean that there is no legal requirement that you have to work? We've already established that. You don't have to work, and you don't have to get paid if you don't.
By "Equal protection of the law" you mean you want to be paid even though you refuse to work. Isn't that the bottom line? We've already been over how you're twisting the meaning of words to make your point, so you have a steep hill to climb on that one.
What do you mean by "solve simple poverty"? You say it all the time and never define it. It means nothing.
How do you think a massive new welfare program (and that's what you want) is going to "lower the cost of Government"?

Here's your chance to move off your trite, meaningless slogans and actually say something. Don't waste it.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,536
Reaction score
5,843
Points
280
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.
So is spending money.

No, spending money is not production.

What sloth would be incentivized

Idiots like you, sitting on the couch and getting paid.
Investment is not production either? Nor is savings?

I would still be spending money in my local economy and contributing to the multiplier effect.
And contributing to the opportunity cost you caused by taxing what someone else earned.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
37,225
Reaction score
12,045
Points
1,560
Location
Boston, MA
I am looking for reason why it would be Bad and promote the general malfare instead of Good and promote the general welfare. The legal and physical infrastructure is already in place in our Republic, it merely needs to be put to use.

Solving for actual economic phenomena is more market friendly than any policies based on political considerations. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment in our at-will employment States. Solving for that economic phenomena via existing legal and physical infrastructure would solve simple poverty and better ensure full employment of capital resources under our form of Capitalism.

Anyone have anything that you believe would make something that simple, not work or be Bad for our economy? I am looking for economic considerations and debate.
Do you know anyone who is good with money who is also poor?
 

Tipsycatlover

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
46,388
Reaction score
18,920
Points
2,330
They promote business friendly policies and the reduction of government.
How do they do that with poverty wages that may require those actually employed to seek social services and that form of Big Government nanny-Statism? Are you sure you are simply being a right winger about this? Raising the minimum wage can actually help lower the cost of Government while generating more tax revenue in the process.
I agree that a fully employed person should be making a living wage for the area they live in. And for places that don't do that I would absolutely support raising the min wage.
gee----I started babysitting ----saturday nites---for 50 cents per hour at age 14. I was
DESPERATE for a job of ANY KIND. If those people who hired me had to pay me 15 dollars per hour-------it wouldn't happen and I would not have a dime. Believe it or not --MY DESPERATION for a job was for the sake of ------saving for college---paying for the
SAT exams-----and........ buying a bit of clothing from the "AS IS" and "seconds" and
''damaged" store up the block. All of my four brothers went to college (like me) on
scholarship, loans and minimum wage jobs. (at 19 I got a job as a clerk type thing in
a hospital at a WOPPING 175 per hour. NOT ALL WORKING PEOPLE CAN GET A JOB THAT PAYS FOR A HOUSE AND A CAR five kids, AND WEEKLY TRIPS TO THE HAIR SALON. The "system" cannot support it. AOC cannot "make ends meet" on 175 thousand dollars per year. ---------
Sorry, I'm not talking about people paying neighborhood kids cash for babysitting. I'm talking about functioning businesses that hire full time employees. Sorry if I was confusing
OK----at age 18, I had a minimum wage job in a large department store----1.25 per hour----------I worked 20 hours per week ---senior year in High School. I NEEDED that one too.
Employees get around that one by hiring PART TIME ONLY
These kinds of jobs are called entry level jobs for a reason. They give young people a chance to enter the work force. At 14 I was a waitress for 50 cents an hour. I was overjoyed to get a raise to 75 cents an hour. There are no more entry level jobs. All jobs are expected to pay enough to support a family of four.

This change happened because of immigration. Adult immigrants started taking those entry level jobs. They didn't need money for school or go to a movie. They weren't saving for that first car. They had kids in school themselves. They have medical issues. They have spouses and sick parents.

That's how minimum wage got out of control.
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
72,801
Reaction score
7,394
Points
1,830
They promote business friendly policies and the reduction of government.
How do they do that with poverty wages that may require those actually employed to seek social services and that form of Big Government nanny-Statism? Are you sure you are simply being a right winger about this? Raising the minimum wage can actually help lower the cost of Government while generating more tax revenue in the process.
I agree that a fully employed person should be making a living wage for the area they live in. And for places that don't do that I would absolutely support raising the min wage.
gee----I started babysitting ----saturday nites---for 50 cents per hour at age 14. I was
DESPERATE for a job of ANY KIND. If those people who hired me had to pay me 15 dollars per hour-------it wouldn't happen and I would not have a dime. Believe it or not --MY DESPERATION for a job was for the sake of ------saving for college---paying for the
SAT exams-----and........ buying a bit of clothing from the "AS IS" and "seconds" and
''damaged" store up the block. All of my four brothers went to college (like me) on
scholarship, loans and minimum wage jobs. (at 19 I got a job as a clerk type thing in
a hospital at a WOPPING 175 per hour. NOT ALL WORKING PEOPLE CAN GET A JOB THAT PAYS FOR A HOUSE AND A CAR five kids, AND WEEKLY TRIPS TO THE HAIR SALON. The "system" cannot support it. AOC cannot "make ends meet" on 175 thousand dollars per year. ---------
Sorry, I'm not talking about people paying neighborhood kids cash for babysitting. I'm talking about functioning businesses that hire full time employees. Sorry if I was confusing
OK----at age 18, I had a minimum wage job in a large department store----1.25 per hour----------I worked 20 hours per week ---senior year in High School. I NEEDED that one too.
Employees get around that one by hiring PART TIME ONLY
These kinds of jobs are called entry level jobs for a reason. They give young people a chance to enter the work force. At 14 I was a waitress for 50 cents an hour. I was overjoyed to get a raise to 75 cents an hour. There are no more entry level jobs. All jobs are expected to pay enough to support a family of four.

This change happened because of immigration. Adult immigrants started taking those entry level jobs. They didn't need money for school or go to a movie. They weren't saving for that first car. They had kids in school themselves. They have medical issues. They have spouses and sick parents.

That's how minimum wage got out of control.

well----I kinda don't COMPLETELY agree that it is
"immigrants" that did it. It is, IMHO, our very own who have decided that a job slinging burgers SHOULD PAY FOR A CAR AND A WEEKLY MANICURE WITH LITTLE PICTURES on each fingernail. Immigrants I have known manage to manage
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,727
Reaction score
9,678
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
So you have no actual knowledge or link, since you have failed to back up you claim, I will treat it as a lie. Thanks for conceding the point that you have actually nothing.
I cited a State labor code, which is something not nothing as you claim and then I cited the general understanding of the federal doctrine which is also something, not nothing as you claim. In right wing fantasy you can be Right for simply being on the right wing.
You have provided no proof, so no link means you are lying. Thanks for proving again you have nothing.
I am not the one appealing to ignorance of the law. You have less standing than I do.
He did not appeal to any such thing. I wanted proof of your claim. You refused to provide it.
you are appealing to ignorance of a very simple concept. y'all have nothing but diversion and ad hominems not any valid rebuttals.
I think his rebuttals are fine, I think you don't have any answers to your simple concept that is beyond your grasp or understanding of the economy or how the world works. Have you lefties been able to fix homelessness in Seattle, Portland, New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco yet? Until you figure that out, you have nothing, throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it.
UC for simply being unemployed would mean we don't need the expense of our alleged wars on crime or drugs.
If the government decides they need money, for anything, they will fund it.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,727
Reaction score
9,678
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
Being fired for cause means you did something to get fired. You broke the rules set by your employer. That is not repugnant to anything. Employment at the will of either party does not mean an employer must keep an employee who violates company policies.
Employment is at-will not for-cause in any at-will employment State. You simply don't understand the law. How right wing of you.
I understand the law quite well. It is you who need to be educated about it.

Please point out, in the US Constitution, where is says the gov't is responsible for paying you for nothing?
Promoting and providing for the general welfare implies it; otherwise we would not have any endless war on poverty. Stop appealing to so much ignorance, it is annoying.
That is not what that statement means.

And if it is, then draw welfare.
Not to you. You appeal to ignorance.
Apparently he does appeal to ignorance, you seem to be following him everywhere, I can’t think of anyone more ignorant than yourself.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top