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

[Slade3200]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Of course it does. It’s called minimum wage

Of course it doesn't.

Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.

If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.

If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7

$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.

Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods,

That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.

make their processes more efficient

It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.

or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

Sorry, the profit was already zero at a $7 minimum wage and the company was
losing money at a $10 wage. No profits to invest in higher wages.

Your example isn’t realistic as businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit. Payroll is typically a 30-50% expense. Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs

 

[emilynghiem]

I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.

How old are you?

Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.

But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?

You miss the whole point about equal protection of the law. I guess you would have had no problem with the Dred Scott decision.

Dear danielpalos
Be careful not to commit the equal and opposite problem of abusing labor of the poor or of the rich without their consent.

Slavery was justified by the idea the slaves depended on the property owners and were working for their substinence as "indentured servants." The slaves were mortgaged through the banks as part of the property, so owners relied on that labor to produce the revenue to pay for both the property and the slaves attached.

We still justify buying goods "made by slave labor" today because economically more people benefit by buying cheap goods to feed the jobs, production and consumer run economies. More children would die of starvation in India by banning child labor, so the reform has to take place gradually. And this was why slavery could not be abolished in America without setting up economic means of support to change the system over time.

Now if you come in with this same thinking.
The benefits of more people can be paid for by controlling or taking the wealth of certain classes of people, this is making the same but equal and opposite mistake.

You are still failing to respect and protect the equal rights and consent of people to the income made by their own labor by subjecting this to dictates by one political interest over another

The solution is NOT targeting people by class and how much money they make.

But charging people who commit actual crimes or abuses that cost taxpayer money to reimburse those costs. By stopping and correcting govt waste and abuse, the money collected or saved can pay for reforms or corrections, including restitution to the victims of abuses and microlending to rebuild communities and economies without relying on handouts.

The only thing govt can regulate to force people to pay with their taxes and labor is if they agree to goods or services they should pay for or if they incur a debt or damage for which they owe a penalty by due process of law.

As we discussed before both general welfare and due process before depriving someone of liberty are both values that should be equally protected, but never by "disparaging" the rights of one over the other.

If your approach to general welfare deprives people of liberty without due process, that is violating the same laws governing rights and equal protections you seek to defend.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Of course it does. It’s called minimum wage

Of course it doesn't.

Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.

If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.

If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7

$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.

Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods,

That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.

make their processes more efficient

It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.

or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

Sorry, the profit was already zero at a $7 minimum wage and the company was
losing money at a $10 wage. No profits to invest in higher wages.

Your example isn’t realistic as businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit. Payroll is typically a 30-50% expense. Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs

Your example isn’t realistic

No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?

businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit.

Not for very long.

Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs

Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?

 

[emilynghiem]

I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?

I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?

I've never been on unemployment so I don't know much about how it works except for what I read but it is my understanding that to receive unemployment checks a person needs to be actively looking for work. I support unemployment being used as a stop gap while people look for work so they don't get crushed by debt and/or lose their houses etc. If people don't want to work then I would not support giving them money. I would support giving them basic living essentials food and shelter and resources if they do decide to look for work, but I'd also require them to give if they are going to get.

The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.

Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.

What law have the states enacted that have the effect of unequal portection?

ACA mandates discriminated against and penalized people who do not believe in govt mandated health care and insurance as the only choice but believe in providing better more cost effective health care by free enterprise alternatives such as cooperative medical associations.


Both laws banning same sex marriage or endorsing same sex marriage violate beliefs of citizens who believe govt should neither establish nor prohibit any beliefs about marriage but only govern neutral civil unions and domestic or guardianship contracts and not get involved deciding any terms of social relationships.

Now with the disputed election, states disagreed on rules for voting on mailin ballots vs notarized absentee ballots. This affected the national election, where either way about 70-74 million voters on both sides disagree with the other party representing or establishing conflicting political beliefs through govt that violate their own.

These issues of political beliefs should be addressed and resolved by Convention of States and representation by Party to form consensus based solutions or an agreed process for separating taxes and jurisdiction by party to stop abusing govt to impose conflicting political beliefs on other citizens and taxpayers who do not agree to fund or follow those through govt.

 

[Slade3200]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Of course it does. It’s called minimum wage

Of course it doesn't.

Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.

If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.

If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7

$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.

Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods,

That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.

make their processes more efficient

It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.

or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

Sorry, the profit was already zero at a $7 minimum wage and the company was
losing money at a $10 wage. No profits to invest in higher wages.

Your example isn’t realistic as businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit. Payroll is typically a 30-50% expense. Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs

Your example isn’t realistic

No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?

businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit.

Not for very long.

Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs

Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?

No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?

Nobody running a successful business would do that, not with $7 in labor

 

[Slade3200]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Of course it does. It’s called minimum wage

Of course it doesn't.

Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.

If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.

If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7

$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.

Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods,

That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.

make their processes more efficient

It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.

or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

Sorry, the profit was already zero at a $7 minimum wage and the company was
losing money at a $10 wage. No profits to invest in higher wages.

Your example isn’t realistic as businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit. Payroll is typically a 30-50% expense. Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs

Your example isn’t realistic

No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?

businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit.

Not for very long.

Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs

Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?

Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?

I never said hiking the minimum wage never causes layoffs

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Of course it does. It’s called minimum wage

Of course it doesn't.

Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.

If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.

If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7

$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.

Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods,

That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.

make their processes more efficient

It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.

or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

Sorry, the profit was already zero at a $7 minimum wage and the company was
losing money at a $10 wage. No profits to invest in higher wages.

Your example isn’t realistic as businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit. Payroll is typically a 30-50% expense. Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs

Your example isn’t realistic

No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?

businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit.

Not for very long.

Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs

Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?

No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?

Nobody running a successful business would do that, not with $7 in labor

So I guess even $7.25/hr can be too much.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who determines what the value of labor is?

The buyer and the seller.

Almost... it may have been that way in the early days of our country but after decades of abuses to workers by the business owners the government decided to step in an require certain standards to be met. Had capitalism stayed fair and not abused their power perhaps there wouldn’t have been a need for regulations but alas, money leads to greed and greed leads to power and power can lead to abuses to those who are not in power.

Almost...

Tell me what additional determinant I missed.

That’s literally what I did in the explaination I posted after I wrote “almost...”

A government regulation does not determine the value of labor.

Of course it does. It’s called minimum wage

Of course it doesn't.

Putting a floor under the wage has nothing to do with the value of the labor.

If you take $3 of materials and add an hour of labor to create a product that you
sell for $10, you've created $7 of value. If the government mandates a $10 wage,
your value added is still $7.

If you pay a $10 wage then the value added is $10 not $7

$10-$3 still equals $7 dollars of added value. Even if the employer would lose
$3 for every item produced. The government wage mandate hasn't made the inputs cheaper or
the output more valuable. It has made the worker less likely to be employed and the
product less likely to be produced.

Just like government, eh?
Higher unemployment and lower GDP, but at least it feels good.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods, make their processes more efficient or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

other options are for the employer to raise the price of the goods,

That's a possibility, realizing that would reduce demand.

make their processes more efficient

It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.

or take less personal profit and invest that towards higher wages.

Sorry, the profit was already zero at a $7 minimum wage and the company was
losing money at a $10 wage. No profits to invest in higher wages.

Your example isn’t realistic as businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit. Payroll is typically a 30-50% expense. Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs

Your example isn’t realistic

No one ever took $3 worth of materials to make $10 worth of product?

businesses don’t prove products and services at zero profit.

Not for very long.

Also regarding your second point, I think you know I wasn’t referring to lay offs

Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?

Hiking the minimum wage never causes lay offs? Why not?

I never said hiking the minimum wage never causes layoffs

Excellent.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.

How old are you?

Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.

But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?

Way to leap in from out of the blue to personally assault the OP, "Moderator"

Bang up job of leading by example! No sense of shame indeed!

 

[WinterBorn]

I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.

How old are you?

Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.

But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?

Way to leap in from out of the blue to personally assault the OP, "Moderator"

Bang up job of leading by example! No sense of shame indeed!

I am also a poster in these forums. If you think what I posted is a personal assault on the OP, you haven't been here long.

The OP wants tax dollars to support him while he makes no effort to work. There should be shame in such an attitude.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.

How old are you?

Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.

But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?

Way to leap in from out of the blue to personally assault the OP, "Moderator"

Bang up job of leading by example! No sense of shame indeed!

I am also a poster in these forums. If you think what I posted is a personal assault on the OP, you haven't been here long.

The OP wants tax dollars to support him while he makes no effort to work. There should be shame in such an attitude.

Funny, I would believe you if you could quote him saying so himself. Without the quote it's just personal attack. Pretty basic stuff.

 

[danielpalos]

Part of the reason for the higher multiplier is the lack of bureaucracy for UC. By changing it to welfare, you will make it a big bureaucracy.

You are the only one claiming it would be changed to welfare. The program would not change, only unequal protection of the laws would change.

That is a FALLACY. The program works the way it does because it is limited to only a subset of people with a specific set of circumstances. Opening it up to everybody would introduce means testing and make it another welfare program. You don't like means testing, but that's what would happen. You would fundamentally change the nature of the program and it wouldn't work the way it does now. You can't avoid that, and STOP calling it "unequal protection of the laws", because it is NOT.

It is your misunderstanding. It is still limited to a subset of people. The employed would not need it and those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough would not want it. Not regular welfare at all. Not means tested. Only the unemployed would need it.

 

[danielpalos]

It's true, minimum wage hikes reduce employment.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed makes that a moot, right wing point.

At the same time you have fewer jobs you want the government to spend more. Who else sees the BIG problem with that?

If you mean right now or in the past, regular UC and extended UC due to the previous recession did what you claim and what was found was that UC generated a multiplier of two. That means that for every dollar spent on UC, two dollars of economic activity was generated. UC is a known Automatic stabilizer and much better than Congress having to come up with seemingly arbitrary and capricious, one time "solutions".

 

[danielpalos]

I have an idea. Why not have a min wage of $15 an hour where up to $10 an hour needs to be payable in cash and $5 an hour can be deferred and paid as stock options, or a profit share bonus... does a compromise along those lines peek the interest of any of you right wingers?

I'm all for paying people $15 an hour and if the business decides to automate the jobs to save money, than so be it. I object to give a person $15 an hour for not being employed, that is the issue of this thread. You don't work and don't want to work, why should the government for paying you? Why do businesses need to pay into unemployment if it goes to people not working by choice?

I've never been on unemployment so I don't know much about how it works except for what I read but it is my understanding that to receive unemployment checks a person needs to be actively looking for work. I support unemployment being used as a stop gap while people look for work so they don't get crushed by debt and/or lose their houses etc. If people don't want to work then I would not support giving them money. I would support giving them basic living essentials food and shelter and resources if they do decide to look for work, but I'd also require them to give if they are going to get.

The Point is, employment is at the will of either party, regardless. States have no authority to enact laws that have the effect of unequal protection. And, our alleged and endless War on Poverty would not be necessary if that were the case. Unemployment compensation is a known automatic stabilizer to our economy.

Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.

That meant nothing at all.

Why not? Or, should I take your word for it simply because you are on the right wing.

Our economy would be much better off without the drag of poverty and inequality through more efficient automatic stabilization. Unemployed labor would simply apply for unemployment compensation. We would have no homeless problem or the extreme poverty that can cause political instability in our economy.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, paying more and more people to produce less and less is very efficient.

Not at all. It the private sector would still be optimizing for their bottom line and unemployed labor would have a better and more stable opportunity to go to school to improve their skills. And, those persons would circulating capital and contributing to multiplier. And, no homeless problem as we do now, nor as many people risking eviction.

 

[danielpalos]

Why completely revamp a program that works, when there is already one that provides what you say will cure simple poverty? Welfare already provides money to live on and job training.

That is just You claiming a complete revamping. Nothing much would change. Unemployed persons would still apply for UC like usual. And, any "revamping" would mean employers don't have to keep track of unemployment benefits issues and become simpler for employers. UC is a State issue not an employer issue. So, if by revamping, you mean simplification, then yes it would be a revamping.

The point about welfare and our war on poverty is that it is less cost effective. Welfare spending only generates a multiplier of around point eight (.8). while UC has been measured with a multiplier of two. Considering that the cost of our war on poverty has already been around twenty-two trillion dollars it should be, a no brainer, to resort to a more cost effective method of solving simple poverty.

Consider that a multiplier of .8 times the cost of our war on poverty to date, around 22 trillion only generates around 17.6 trillion in economic activity while UC would have generated 44 trillion in economic activity with a multiplier of 2 with that same amount spent.

Only right wingers complain about a rising tide lifting all boats.

 

[danielpalos]

And again you fail to acknowledge the truth that you will be incentivizing people to not work, even when they have jobs they can do.

That is your misunderstanding under any form of free market Capitalism. Employers could simply raise wages to attract employees. There is no unemployment under Capitalism only underpayment.

 

[danielpalos]

That has not been the case with QE.

No inflation under QE? DURR.

Show us the link, don't merely imply you must be Right merely because you are on the right wing.

I await the proof of your claim.

The average annual inflation from 1990 through the end of 2018 was 2.46%. (Jan 1, 2021)

Average Annual Inflation Rate by Decade

Some Decades have Averaged massive annual inflation. This chart shows average Inflation Rates during each decade since 1913

inflationdata.com

.

 

[danielpalos]

I am not a right winger. Only right wingers have nothing but fallacy and have no shame.

How old are you?

Old enough to have a sense of shame for having nothing but fallacy instead of valid arguments.

But not old enough to have a sense of shame for wanting others to work hard to provide for themselves AND provide money for you that you may or may not need?

You miss the whole point about equal protection of the law. I guess you would have had no problem with the Dred Scott decision.

You continue to whine about equal protection.

What protection does the employer get that the employee does not get?

No one is requiring a good reason to fire employees for corporate downsizing. Any other silly questions?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Dear danielpalos
1. As even Sanders lobbies for worker owned cooperatives, the cooperative system of economic empowerment and equality is superior in allowing all persons equal access, training and ownership by free enterprise. This is superior to state mandated changes because people can make the same beneficial decisions directly WITHOUT relying on politics. Your statement also blamed the malware on politics, so this would be removed.

2. As Obama advocates for Microlending and training to replace welfare handouts, again the longterm solution to poverty is teaching self reliance and management of ownership. Not depending on outside help.

We can still have govt assist with the process of ensuring all districts have proportional access to financing and cooperative jobs and sites to set up sustainable education, health care and other services. It has to be set up to invest in local ownership, NOT reliance on govt and handouts, for people to be empowered equally and communities and economy to be self sustainable.

But there is no substitute for teaching people to build this themselves, to own and manage their own businesses, schools and community run cooperative government administrations.

The govt can help set up sites and paid mentorships and internships so everyone can have equal access to develop their own self governing democratic cooperatives.

But for people to be equal financially and legally, the ownership and control of resources are best managed locally not dictated or controlled by top down govt.
As long as central govt is put in charge, some people will have more power or access than others and continue politics to be abused to favor one group over others.

But everyone running their own cooperative health care and business networks by party or by district, then people can have all the same benefits you argue for but managed directly for themselves without relying on outside govt that just provides external facilities and maybe federal grants to support research and development jobs and training that can be used to replicate programs for sustainable self government to stop financial dependence on govt, political oppression and corporate abuses.

How does all of that enable an end to our endless War on Poverty? Capitalism is still about boom and bust.