CDZ redistribution of wealth

[danielpalos]

Through unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines; in our at-will employment States--as that form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor from that market at that (fixed Standard) rock bottom cost.

Ah........... ok then.

So we set unemployment compensation to be the poverty rate, and allow anyone to take it indefinitely.

That would in fact eliminate poverty, that's true.

It would also completely bankrupt the system, and send the entire country into a death spiral.

How exactly, would you propose we pay for such a plan?

Why do you believe what you do; or do you habitually appeal to ignorance?

You can trust, that I would never appeal to your ignorance ever.

Why I believe that is because of something super sophisticated called "math".

Unemployment benefits cost 520 billion - Nov. 29 2012

According to the most recent numbers, the total cost of unemployment compensation was over $550 Billion dollars in the last 5 years.

That's with a capped weekly benefit under $400 in most states, with the vast majority collecting less, and with a capped number of weeks you could collect such benefits.

We have at least 23 Million unemployed people (last I checked). That's the ones we know about.

That's almost double the total number of people who were collecting unemployment comp at the height of the recession.

But that also ignores millions who currently have low paying jobs, who would rather sit on unemployment comp for free.

Additionally this ignores people who choose not to work, but would absolutely collect unemployment comp if they could.

For example, I know a lady who is a stay at home mother. She's perfectly happy to be where she is. If you say she now can qualify for unemployment compensation 'at-will'... she'll do it.

Heck... I'd do it.

So millions of people are going to take the money if they can.

Not to mention millions of have no legally reported income. Those working off the books. They will also be more than happen to take the money.

Lastly, it's a proven documented fact, that people are less likely to work, even if it would mean more money, if they get enough from the government to live.

So more people may quit their jobs, and just live off the government, if they are given the option.

Thus fewer people working and producing, equals lower and lower tax revenue. At the same time, more and more people living off unemployment comp, equals higher and higher government expenses.

Detroit, only on a national scale.

Like I said; you don't really believe in Capitalism or making more money, with some money.

Now, new evidence from a study commissioned by the Labor Department during the Bush Administration reaffirms the value of UI as an automatic economic stabilizer during the latest recession. This study was conducted by the research firm IMPAQ International in conjunction with the Urban Institute and using the macroeconomic model from Moody’s Economy.com.

The study found that UI benefits:

• reduced the fall in GDP by 18.3%. This resulted in nominal GDP being $175 billion higher in 2009 than it would have been without unemployment insurance benefits. In total, unemployment insurance kept GDP $315 billion higher from the start of the recession through the second quarter of 2010;
• kept an average of 1.6 million Americans on the job in each quarter: at the low point of the recession, 1.8 million job losses were averted by UI benefits, lowering the unemployment rate by approximately 1.2 percentage points;
• made an even more positive impact than in previous recessions, thanks to the aggressive, bipartisan effort to expand unemployment insurance benefits and increase eligibility during both the Bush and Obama Administrations. “There is reason to believe,” said the study, “that for this particular recession, the UI program provided stronger stabilization of real output than in many past recessions because extended benefits responded strongly.”
• have a multiplier effect of 2.0: for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance, this report finds an increase in economic activity of two dollars.

Source: ETA News Release US Labor Department study underscores positive impact of unemployment insurance 11 16 2010

 

[danielpalos]

Through unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines; in our at-will employment States--as that form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor from that market at that (fixed Standard) rock bottom cost.

Ah........... ok then.

So we set unemployment compensation to be the poverty rate, and allow anyone to take it indefinitely.

That would in fact eliminate poverty, that's true.

How exactly, would you propose we pay for such a plan?

A simpler and general Tax on Firms. It should reduce red tape.

Which will cause even less investment in the US, regardless of red tape, and thus fewer jobs and less tax revenue. Result, more people taking government money, when the government has less money to give. Thus economic ruin.

Companies are already moving their investments overseas to avoid taxes as they are now. And you want to increase taxes to pay for ever greater benefits, which we also can't afford now. Bad plan.

You need a clue and a Cause to make such statements with any form of confidence in your conviction. How does achieving a form of full employment accomplish Any Thing like the doomsday sooth sayings of the right?

 

[ralfy]

Socialism doesn't bail out capitalism. Rather, with capitalism, those in financial power take over and control the government. That's why Washington bailed out Wall Street.

Yes, when those with enough money realize they can simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities. How do you believe the least wealthy learn how to "fish" the system while calling it a game. It was simply the socialism of using the Peoples' monies instead of being better capitalists who need less public sector regulation by finding their funding sources in the private sector.

That's not socialism.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not. Socialism refers to social ownership of the means of production:

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you are referring to is

Crony capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am referring to the socialism of using the Peoples' money.

That's crony capitalism.

 

[ralfy]

Before a money-based economy, exchange of goods was more or less direct. Goods can be capital. Money is a form of capital. A profit can be obtained through direct trade or exchange, in the form of more goods than one started with. Using just money, only more money is directly gained.

The elaborate system in place today that is called capitalism stems from this. That is why, in the simplest terms, it was described that way in the earlier post.

Communism, similarly, can be reduced to a very elemental level. Today, when some people hear the word, they see Joseph Stalin peering in the window. Look in Acts of the Apostles and you'll see the early Christian community put all their possession into common holdings. Were they Marxists? Of course not.

Yes, I agree with that. Before there was money, they still had Capitalism. The farmer owned his land, and he owned the labor on his land. He owned the produce of the field. He 'bartered' traded his produce for other things, like horses, plows, wood, what have you.

The farmer 'invested' just like a modern capitalist, by trading his goods for material to make a new barn, to hold more produce, or live stock, so he could 'profit', in producing more produce and live stock.

And no, the book of Acts of the Apostles has nothing at all to do with communism or marxism. The situation described by the Bible, was based on voluntary choice, and was controlled by no one. There was no "social" control. No government coercion. It was more like charity, where people voluntarily gave by choice, and there was no 'social' authority figure determining who got what.

It is very likely that money was used because barter is very inefficient in markets. Given that, profit, wage labor, investments, and even returns on investment emerged thanks to the use of money.

Also, from what I know, social authority in the Bible took the form of religious leaders, traditions, and beliefs.

Not at all. Not from the new testament perspective. I would direct you to Acts 5. The story of Ananias and Sapphira, where Peter, the leader of the new testament church, says very clearly "Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?".

Peter made it very clear, the property was his, and when he sold it, the money was his. He was not required to sell it, or give the money to the church.

And again, I would argue that 'returns on investment', existed before money did. Yes, obviously money makes transactions easier, and thus economic growth easier. I agree.

But it is not required.

Why just Acts 5? Why not include other events from the NT where opposing views are given?

Also, I was referring to religious authority. That is ironically seen in the same Acts 5 you mentioned.

Finally, my point isn't that ROI didn't exist before money. Rather, money makes that and profit-making much easier.

There is no 'opposing' doctrine. There are no other parts of the Bible that contradict Acts 5.

Of course money makes profit easier. Having a standardized medium of exchange makes all economic activities easier. If that's your only point, then I agree.

What I had a problem with, was the notion that capitalism didn't exist until we had money. That's the claim I'm arguing is false.

There are "opposing" views. I will not explain what is painfully obvious.

There are different aspects concerning capitalism, but the modern form started only when private property in terms of land took place through enclosures, then legitimized.

 

[ralfy]

I am referring to the socialism of using the Peoples' money.

A euphemism party? Is official poverty invited?

Using the People's Mint to produce the Peoples' money is a form of socialism not capitalism.

While that is on a purely technical level correct.... I don't see a viable alternative.

The ideal solution, would be to return to a gold or silver standard. A commodity backed currency.

The problem there is, we'd end up with the problems that caused us to go to a fiat currency. Namely that other countries will sell us goods, and covert the currency to gold or silver, and cause monetary havoc in our economy.

Thus the only possible solution is to eliminate all foreign trade, to avoid depletion of our commodities.

But that would cause such an economic collapse, worse than the world has ever seen before. Honestly, I would bet it would spark revolution here and abroad, and WW3.

So my opinion is, socialized fiat currency is a necessary evil. It's not the ideal, but it's the best of bad options.

The problem isn't the type of credit involved but the fact that free market capitalism involves continuous economic growth in a world with physical limits.

 

[ralfy]

You are not countering my argument. In fact, you just proved it.

The fact that profit is a result of capitalism proves my point. The same goes for investing money: where do you think the return on investment comes from?

As I said, your definition is lacking. Try this longer one:

Capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

While you are at it, look up "capital accumulation."

The source of capital can be profit. But that is not a requirement. If profit was absolutely required, then how did man ever start the economic system?

Can you create profit without any capital to profit from?

At the start of the human race, where was no capital. Right? Nothing had been made yet.

Man created capital from his own labor, with zero profit.

A man digs for gold with his hands. Zero profit, and yet his capital is increasing.

A man builds a home from trees, stones and mud. He now has capital, but has not made any profit.

When he sells the gold, the home, or whatever he has created, then he has profit.

Where do you think my mistake in logic is?

The first man has to eat and use tools to dig for gold. That's his capital. The same goes for the man who builds a home.

Presumably, both will sell to earn a profit, which in turn will be used to expand their businesses.

There's your capitalism. The problem is that you got stuck with the initial part of the process.

You can make your own tools, and hunt for your own food. Even if he didn't sell for a profit, he could still grow his capital. That is my primary point. Profit is not an absolute requirement, to have capital, and thus capitalism.

The point isn't that you can make your own tools or hunt for your own food. It's that you can use your profit to hire others to do that for you and acquire more capital to produce more and make even more profits.

That's capitalism.

The problem is that you are stuck with the initial part of the process. For some reason, you cannot imagine that the profit earned will not be used as capital.

No I can. That is part of capitalism.

But capitalism is also you just building your own house.

Taking the seeds I produce, to produce more, without selling anything... is also capitalism. I'm using my capital to advance myself. I'm investing what I have, to create more capital. I've hired no one, and sold to no one. I'm still engaging in Capitalism.

You are not countering my argument in any way. In fact, you are only repeating it.

 

[RKMBrown]

What would be wrong with "pumping" our economy with a form of minimum wage simply for being unemployed? It would solve one dilemma regarding supply and demand via some fixed Standard.

I'm confused again. You want to raise the minimum wage, so more people are unemployed, and earning nothing? This would benefit who, and how?

Actually, I want to solve simple poverty and the capitalist inefficiency of a Natural Rate of Unemployment, via a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines and that is as easy to administer as the concept of employment at will can make it.

I hope you are no longer confused as to my Intent and Purpose.

Right. So the value of the labor is only $7 an hour. The minimum wage is $10 or $12 an hour.

Since the value the employee is creating, is lower than the minimum wage allowed by law, the result is, I law off the employees that have low value labor.

Not only do the employees earn zero instead of the $7/hour they were earning before, but now they can't get work experience, or on the job training, which would allow them to move up the income ladder.

The current CEO of Walmart, started out his career as a low wage seasonal worker, unloading trucks for Walmart during the summer.

You are cutting off the rung of the ladder that the CEO used to get to where he is.

You are missing the point about a form of minimum wage that merely reserves labor from the private sector at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Using Your example, the "minimum wage" could be $8/hour--for ease of discussion.
Value would be created through scarcity (of labor) at a fixed Standard, wage price per hour--a form of minimum wage.

This method is much more market recognizable and much more market friendly.

I don't think some libs understand the simple fact that some jobs are just not worth overpaying someone to do. I find those are usually the same ones that would rather pay someone to do nothing than encourage them to do something worthy of an income that gets them out of poverty.

IOW some libs just want something "done" about the problem of poverty, and are too ignorant or just don't care enough to actually "do" something about the problem. Instead they seem to be encouraging poverty to have a steady stream of voters who vote for redistribution money.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, when those with enough money realize they can simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities. How do you believe the least wealthy learn how to "fish" the system while calling it a game. It was simply the socialism of using the Peoples' monies instead of being better capitalists who need less public sector regulation by finding their funding sources in the private sector.

That's not socialism.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not. Socialism refers to social ownership of the means of production:

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you are referring to is

Crony capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am referring to the socialism of using the Peoples' money.

That's crony capitalism.

It can't be crony capitalism with public money; it should have to be private money.

 

[quorthon]

 

[danielpalos]

What would be wrong with "pumping" our economy with a form of minimum wage simply for being unemployed? It would solve one dilemma regarding supply and demand via some fixed Standard.

What private sector would be worse off by solving for a poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets.

 

[there4eyeM]

To recapitulate, we have, as I'd hoped, established that 'redistribution' can be voluntary and by intelligent wealthy sectors without government involvement. Most also agree that distribution up from the bottom by government intervention, such as regressive taxation, is unjust.
What I would like to talk about further is how our systems can work more for us and we less controlled by them, thus redistributing power outward from the center. When I say system, I mean social and moral at least as much as governmental. When we discuss this, just as an exercise, let's try to avoid the facile dualism of just 'left' and right, 'lib' and 'con'. Why not see if we can find other, non-volatile terms?
For starters, how about organized religion requiring their members to adhere to tenets of charity by donating ten percent of income?

 

[danielpalos]

General forms of taxation are preferable to direct forms of taxation.

 

[jasonnfree]

What would be wrong with "pumping" our economy with a form of minimum wage simply for being unemployed? It would solve one dilemma regarding supply and demand via some fixed Standard.

What private sector would be worse off by solving for a poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets.

There was a novel in the 50's by Vonnegut, "Player Piano". The industries used robots heavily which put people out of work. So the State created a stipend for the unemployed. Someone had to buy the stuff the robots were creating.

 

[danielpalos]

What would be wrong with "pumping" our economy with a form of minimum wage simply for being unemployed? It would solve one dilemma regarding supply and demand via some fixed Standard.

What private sector would be worse off by solving for a poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets.

There was a novel in the 50's by Vonnegut, "Player Piano". The industries used robots heavily which put people out of work. So the State created a stipend for the unemployed. Someone had to buy the stuff the robots were creating.

The concept of employment at will was developed in the early 1900s.

 

[RKMBrown]

To recapitulate, we have, as I'd hoped, established that 'redistribution' can be voluntary and by intelligent wealthy sectors without government involvement. Most also agree that distribution up from the bottom by government intervention, such as regressive taxation, is unjust.
What I would like to talk about further is how our systems can work more for us and we less controlled by them, thus redistributing power outward from the center. When I say system, I mean social and moral at least as much as governmental. When we discuss this, just as an exercise, let's try to avoid the facile dualism of just 'left' and right, 'lib' and 'con'. Why not see if we can find other, non-volatile terms?
For starters, how about organized religion requiring their members to adhere to tenets of charity by donating ten percent of income?

So you suggest we don't use volatile words like lib and con, left and right but then immediately suggest religions require tithes? How do you require tithing without force? The problem we have right now is government wants to be the substitute for religion, where it forces tithing and decides on re-distributions on it's own.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a First Amendment.

I believe morals tests on a for-profit basis should have as much Faith and as much Credit as drug tests on that same basis.

 

[regent]

That was sort of the Townsend plan during the Great Depression. Give the elderly and disabled a pension of $200 a month but they had to spend the entire amount in that same period. FDR thought work is better for the able, and Social Security for the elderly.

 

[danielpalos]

The (legal and social) concept of employment at will is much simpler, and more market friendly.

We could be improving the efficiency of our economy and lowering our tax burden by using socialism to bailout capitalism's market based inefficiencies, such as any Natural Rate of Unemployment.

Do we really need our elected representatives to have to (potentially micro-)manage any Thing more complicated than the concept of employment at will can make it. I believe our elected representatives should not be made to feel guilty about their cushy party-time jobs.

Reducing any regulatory burden regarding personnel costs concerning litigation or even the gambit of litigation could be a boon in itself.

 

[ralfy]

That's not socialism.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not. Socialism refers to social ownership of the means of production:

Socialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What you are referring to is

Crony capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I am referring to the socialism of using the Peoples' money.

That's crony capitalism.

It can't be crony capitalism with public money; it should have to be private money.

Check the definition shared earlier.

 

[ABikerSailor]

What would be wrong with "pumping" our economy with a form of minimum wage simply for being unemployed? It would solve one dilemma regarding supply and demand via some fixed Standard.

I'm confused again. You want to raise the minimum wage, so more people are unemployed, and earning nothing? This would benefit who, and how?

Actually, I want to solve simple poverty and the capitalist inefficiency of a Natural Rate of Unemployment, via a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines and that is as easy to administer as the concept of employment at will can make it.

I hope you are no longer confused as to my Intent and Purpose.

Right. So the value of the labor is only $7 an hour. The minimum wage is $10 or $12 an hour.

Since the value the employee is creating, is lower than the minimum wage allowed by law, the result is, I law off the employees that have low value labor.

Not only do the employees earn zero instead of the $7/hour they were earning before, but now they can't get work experience, or on the job training, which would allow them to move up the income ladder.

The current CEO of Walmart, started out his career as a low wage seasonal worker, unloading trucks for Walmart during the summer.

You are cutting off the rung of the ladder that the CEO used to get to where he is.

You are missing the point about a form of minimum wage that merely reserves labor from the private sector at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that clears our poverty guidelines.

Using Your example, the "minimum wage" could be $8/hour--for ease of discussion.
Value would be created through scarcity (of labor) at a fixed Standard, wage price per hour--a form of minimum wage.

This method is much more market recognizable and much more market friendly.

I don't think some libs understand the simple fact that some jobs are just not worth overpaying someone to do. I find those are usually the same ones that would rather pay someone to do nothing than encourage them to do something worthy of an income that gets them out of poverty.

IOW some libs just want something "done" about the problem of poverty, and are too ignorant or just don't care enough to actually "do" something about the problem. Instead they seem to be encouraging poverty to have a steady stream of voters who vote for redistribution money.

What kind of jobs are overpaying someone to do it? Jobs like joining the military?

Trust me..............nobody ever got rich by joining the military. At best (unless they were O-4's or better) they made it to middle class.

Interestingly enough, active duty members who are E-5 or below qualify for assistance programs like WIC. I know, because I used it when I was in the Navy.