Is Unemployment Planned???

[oldfart]

Yes unemployment is planned. We have a certain number of economic policy goals and a number of tools available. The policies chosen reflect the importance we attach to each goal and the tools we are willing to use. Right now both Europe and the United States have levels of unemployment that would have been unacceptable in the past, which appear to be acceptable now. Presumably the elites that decide policy have higher goals than reducing unemployment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since we're buds, I'll just call you 'jerk'......OK?

Your unartful use of invective is one of the most unappealing aspects of your posting style. Since you are no good at it, you should stop trying to be cute.

Your ability to judge who might actually follow your orders leaves much to be desired.

Since you are no good at it, you should stop trying to appear the arriviste.


You appear to be one of those really boring people who use their fingers to air-quote as they speak. True?

 

[oldfart]

Since we're buds, I'll just call you 'jerk'......OK?

Your unartful use of invective is one of the most unappealing aspects of your posting style. Since you are no good at it, you should stop trying to be cute.

Your ability to judge who might actually follow your orders leaves much to be desired.

Since you are no good at it, you should stop trying to appear the arriviste.


You appear to be one of those really boring people who use their fingers to air-quote as they speak. True?

You misunderstand. I make suggestions, I never order. If you are hell-bent on looking petty who am I to stop you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your unartful use of invective is one of the most unappealing aspects of your posting style. Since you are no good at it, you should stop trying to be cute.

Your ability to judge who might actually follow your orders leaves much to be desired.

Since you are no good at it, you should stop trying to appear the arriviste.


You appear to be one of those really boring people who use their fingers to air-quote as they speak. True?

You misunderstand. I make suggestions, I never order. If you are hell-bent on looking petty who am I to stop you?

Perhaps you'll find this petty:

While you seem competent in a number of the details of economics, you have proven ill-equipped to place motivations and economic programs in their proper perspective.

Policies are not chosen at random, and one with the view that you have fails to see the role that politics has.

I refer to your statement:

"If your definition of liberal is one whose goal is to equalize wealth, then there are no liberal posters on this board. Again you are setting up a straw man."


Perhaps you can see why you cannot be taken seriously.

 

[PoliticalChic]

stupid conspiracy theory

I can certainly see why you'd feel that you have a degree of expertise in 'stupid.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

The US and the western countries abandoned full employment as national policies after the Great Depression. I blame the monetarists – and their reactionary allies in Congress – for changing goal posts. The problem is, in their current state, modern capitalist economies simply cannot achieve full employment due to terrible macroeconomic policies.

A responsible policy would be for the government to spend enough to achieve full employment and steer around any bottlenecks in the overall economy. Most of these bottlenecks are directly responsible for most time periods of inflation during the modern era.

The US should no longer leverage unemployment to control inflation. This model is problematic to say the least. We should replace NAIRU with be a national employment buffer stock.

"The US should no longer leverage unemployment to control inflation."


As the essence of the OP is that certain versions of government manipulate unemployment for far different reasons.


I wonder if you understand the reasons implied.

 

[Kimura]

The US and the western countries abandoned full employment as national policies after the Great Depression. I blame the monetarists – and their reactionary allies in Congress – for changing goal posts. The problem is, in their current state, modern capitalist economies simply cannot achieve full employment due to terrible macroeconomic policies.

A responsible policy would be for the government to spend enough to achieve full employment and steer around any bottlenecks in the overall economy. Most of these bottlenecks are directly responsible for most time periods of inflation during the modern era.

The US should no longer leverage unemployment to control inflation. This model is problematic to say the least. We should replace NAIRU with be a national employment buffer stock.

"The US should no longer leverage unemployment to control inflation."


As the essence of the OP is that certain versions of government manipulate unemployment for far different reasons.


I wonder if you understand the reasons implied.

I understood your post. Welfare doesn't prolong or create unemployment. I was simply stating that our economy isn't currently structured for full employment. It hasn't been since the end of the WWII era. There are demand gaps and structural unemployment built into the economy which have to be addressed if we expect to move forward in any meaningful fashion as a country. In other words, until we create some type of national employment buffer stock, there will continue to be unemployment problems.

I do agree that there's a social stigma attached to be on welfare and unemployed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The US and the western countries abandoned full employment as national policies after the Great Depression. I blame the monetarists – and their reactionary allies in Congress – for changing goal posts. The problem is, in their current state, modern capitalist economies simply cannot achieve full employment due to terrible macroeconomic policies.

A responsible policy would be for the government to spend enough to achieve full employment and steer around any bottlenecks in the overall economy. Most of these bottlenecks are directly responsible for most time periods of inflation during the modern era.

The US should no longer leverage unemployment to control inflation. This model is problematic to say the least. We should replace NAIRU with be a national employment buffer stock.

"The US should no longer leverage unemployment to control inflation."


As the essence of the OP is that certain versions of government manipulate unemployment for far different reasons.


I wonder if you understand the reasons implied.

I understood your post. Welfare doesn't prolong or create unemployment. I was simply stating that our economy isn't currently structured for full employment. It hasn't been since the end of the WWII era. There are demand gaps and structural unemployment built into the economy which have to be addressed if we expect to move forward in any meaningful fashion as a country. In other words, until we create some type of national employment buffer stock, there will continue to be unemployment problems.

I do agree that there's a social stigma attached to be on welfare and unemployed.

"Welfare doesn't prolong or create unemployment."

Now, why would you claim that....when item #4 in the OP clearly proves that the opposite is true.


Tends to remove any possibility that you have cachet or expertise in the area.

 

[Hyrcanus]

stupid conspiracy theory

I can certainly see why you'd feel that you have a degree of expertise in 'stupid.'

mind your fucking business.

 

[PoliticalChic]

stupid conspiracy theory

I can certainly see why you'd feel that you have a degree of expertise in 'stupid.'

mind your fucking business.

See, Hyrcamajerk......now you're being vulgar again....

If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.





Any truth to the rumor that you are so dumb you can only hitchhike in one direction?

 

[Hyrcanus]

[See, Hyrcamajerk......now you're being vulgar again....

If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

Any truth to the rumor that you are so dumb you can only hitchhike in one direction?

personal attacks are a good sign of a lost argument.

game....set....match.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[See, Hyrcamajerk......now you're being vulgar again....

If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

Any truth to the rumor that you are so dumb you can only hitchhike in one direction?

personal attacks are a good sign of a lost argument.

game....set....match.

See.....aren't you going to thank me for correcting your language?


At least let me correct your post to one more appropriate in communications with you:
"personal attacks are a good sign"



Now that we're such good buds....let me clue you in: Some dyslexic said you were full of carp.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Now that we're such good buds....let me clue you in: Some dyslexic said you were full of carp.

game.....set.....MATCH.

I win.

 

[Kimura]

"The US should no longer leverage unemployment to control inflation."


As the essence of the OP is that certain versions of government manipulate unemployment for far different reasons.


I wonder if you understand the reasons implied.

I understood your post. Welfare doesn't prolong or create unemployment. I was simply stating that our economy isn't currently structured for full employment. It hasn't been since the end of the WWII era. There are demand gaps and structural unemployment built into the economy which have to be addressed if we expect to move forward in any meaningful fashion as a country. In other words, until we create some type of national employment buffer stock, there will continue to be unemployment problems.

I do agree that there's a social stigma attached to be on welfare and unemployed.

"Welfare doesn't prolong or create unemployment."

Now, why would you claim that....when item #4 in the OP clearly proves that the opposite is true.


Tends to remove any possibility that you have cachet or expertise in the area.

No, it doesn't prove anything. I'm more than familiar with Robert Rector and the Heritage Foundation. I read that paper years ago, it's full of problems to say the least. Remember, correlation is not causation.

Here’s the problem: There aren’t enough available job openings for the current number of people looking for jobs. We’re not even factoring in the disabled, elderly or discouraged workers. If the government were to toss these people off welfare, the number of job seekers would massively increase in an economy which isn't creating a sufficient amount of jobs. The problem isn’t people dropping out of the labor force, but rather an economy which is structurally not equipped to create more jobs. In other words, welfare isn’t acting as some disincentive to find a job. Welfare is basically functioning as supplementary income for people who cannot secure employment due to changes and the overall structure of the labor market.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hitler being Man of the Year had nothing to do with Socialism being popular.

Hitler wasn't a Socialist.

Right, he was a "National Republican!"

You voted for Obama, dinja?

 

[Hyrcanus]

...You voted for Obama, dinja?

You would have voted for Hitler in 1933.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You would have voted for Hitler in 1933.

You DID vote for Obama!

See, we knew you were stupid as a fucking dried monkey turd..

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understood your post. Welfare doesn't prolong or create unemployment. I was simply stating that our economy isn't currently structured for full employment. It hasn't been since the end of the WWII era. There are demand gaps and structural unemployment built into the economy which have to be addressed if we expect to move forward in any meaningful fashion as a country. In other words, until we create some type of national employment buffer stock, there will continue to be unemployment problems.

I do agree that there's a social stigma attached to be on welfare and unemployed.

"Welfare doesn't prolong or create unemployment."

Now, why would you claim that....when item #4 in the OP clearly proves that the opposite is true.


Tends to remove any possibility that you have cachet or expertise in the area.

No, it doesn't prove anything. I'm more than familiar with Robert Rector and the Heritage Foundation. I read that paper years ago, it's full of problems to say the least. Remember, correlation is not causation.

Here’s the problem: There aren’t enough available job openings for the current number of people looking for jobs. We’re not even factoring in the disabled, elderly or discouraged workers. If the government were to toss these people off welfare, the number of job seekers would massively increase in an economy which isn't creating a sufficient amount of jobs. The problem isn’t people dropping out of the labor force, but rather an economy which is structurally not equipped to create more jobs. In other words, welfare isn’t acting as some disincentive to find a job. Welfare is basically functioning as supplementary income for people who cannot secure employment due to changes and the overall structure of the labor market.

Nonsense.


Covered in chapter five of Peter Ferrara’s “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb.”

1. The colloquial use of “poverty” implies a material deprivation, which hardly exists. But this is not to say that a poverty of social conditions does not exist, and this cannot be remedied with money. In fact, the root cause of this poverty is the perverse, counterproductive incentives arising from the welfare system itself.

2. Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.

3. A key to why ‘poverty’ ceased to decline almost as soon as the ‘War on Poverty’ began, is that the poor and lower-income population stopped working, and this led to the other deteriorating social conditions Murray cites. In 1960, almost 2/3 of lowest-income households were headed by persons who worked. http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-080.pdf

a. By 1991, this number was down to only one third….and only 11% working full time. Nor was this due to being unable to find work, as the ‘80’s and ‘90’s were boom times.


4. Here we see an inherent weakness in Liberal thinking, that is that they are the smartest of folks, and their brilliance is necessary for other to prosper. The sequitur is that the people that they guide are stupid. No, the problem is that, with government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.


5. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf

a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf

b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.



Perhaps you'd best stick to 'wax on, wax off.'

 

[Hyrcanus]

See, we knew you were stupid as a fucking dried monkey turd..

you poor thing..

 

[oldfart]

See, we knew you were stupid as a fucking dried monkey turd..

you poor thing..

Well PC and her late-arriving sidekick seem to be unable to respond to anyone else without insults and vulgarities. Folks we might as well beam up, as there is no intelligent life down here. Catch me on any other thread.

And PC, no need to make a parting shot as I won't be reading this or any other of your threads for a while. But if it makes you feel good about yourself to insult other people.....