Unemployed need not apply

[danielpalos]

Unemployment benefits aren't spent in the economy?

Of course they are, but first they have to be taken from those who would use it to expand the economy, thus making unemployment benefits less necessary. Essentially, you have a vicious cycle going. Some people are out of a job, we take money away from those who create jobs, more people are out of a job, we take more money away from job creators, and the cycle continues.

that is like saying that "accumulating capital" for a proverbial rainy day, is not Capitalist.

How does that relate to the reality that any money the government wants to spend must first be taken from productive people and businesses?

It may be a fallacy of composition.

The general government of the Union has recourse to a Commerce Clause and an official Mint that can almost as if by magic, create (fiat) money out of "thin air".

Of course that results in inflation, which devalues the economy as a whole. It does not represent true wealth.

not necessarily; investments in the general welfare should make a "profit" for the People under any form of Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

If money is taken out of the economy and not spent again it's taken out of the economy. Welfare for people is spent again.

econ 101: money is not put in a mattress. govt can tax money and waste it on crippling welfare or not tax it in which case it is put n a bank and invested for economic growth.

Economic growth is how we got from the stone age to here. It is obviously the best choice.

nothing but the specialness of diversion for your Cause?

unemployment compensation benefits "pump" money back into the economy.

 

[danielpalos]

Of course they are, but first they have to be taken from those who would use it to expand the economy, thus making unemployment benefits less necessary. Essentially, you have a vicious cycle going. Some people are out of a job, we take money away from those who create jobs, more people are out of a job, we take more money away from job creators, and the cycle continues.

that is like saying that "accumulating capital" for a proverbial rainy day, is not Capitalist.

How does that relate to the reality that any money the government wants to spend must first be taken from productive people and businesses?

It may be a fallacy of composition.

The general government of the Union has recourse to a Commerce Clause and an official Mint that can almost as if by magic, create (fiat) money out of "thin air".

Of course that results in inflation, which devalues the economy as a whole. It does not represent true wealth.

yes printing money beyond what is necessary to prevent deflation harms an economy by pushing prices up and down to the point where consumers cant accurately comparison shop for the best value. This they get poorer.

I agree; beyond what is necessary and proper. We really should dump our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror in favor of simply solving for simple poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

1. It is taken from those who would otherwise make use of it to expand businesses, hire more people, and buy more stuff. They can't, though, because they don't have it any more.
2. Okay, I won't vote for Hillary.

Unemployment benefits aren't spent in the economy?

Of course they are, but first they have to be taken from those who would use it to expand the economy, thus making unemployment benefits less necessary. Essentially, you have a vicious cycle going. Some people are out of a job, we take money away from those who create jobs, more people are out of a job, we take more money away from job creators, and the cycle continues.

true!! That's how FDR kept the Depression going for 16 years!!!

dear, Anything was better than Hooverville, literally.

 

[hadit]

If money is taken out of the economy and not spent again it's taken out of the economy. Welfare for people is spent again.

econ 101: money is not put in a mattress. govt can tax money and waste it on crippling welfare or not tax it in which case it is put n a bank and invested for economic growth.

Economic growth is how we got from the stone age to here. It is obviously the best choice.

nothing but the specialness of diversion for your Cause?

unemployment compensation benefits "pump" money back into the economy.

It wouldn't have to be "pumped back into the economy" if it wasn't taken out of the economy in the first place.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If money is taken out of the economy and not spent again it's taken out of the economy. Welfare for people is spent again.

econ 101: money is not put in a mattress. govt can tax money and waste it on crippling welfare or not tax it in which case it is put n a bank and invested for economic growth.

Economic growth is how we got from the stone age to here. It is obviously the best choice.

nothing but the specialness of diversion for your Cause?

unemployment compensation benefits "pump" money back into the economy.

It wouldn't have to be "pumped back into the economy" if it wasn't taken out of the economy in the first place.

yes and pumped back for crippling welfare consumption and left in for investment and economic growth are very different things. A liberal will lack the IQ to grasp this distinction.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1. It is taken from those who would otherwise make use of it to expand businesses, hire more people, and buy more stuff. They can't, though, because they don't have it any more.
2. Okay, I won't vote for Hillary.

Unemployment benefits aren't spent in the economy?

Of course they are, but first they have to be taken from those who would use it to expand the economy, thus making unemployment benefits less necessary. Essentially, you have a vicious cycle going. Some people are out of a job, we take money away from those who create jobs, more people are out of a job, we take more money away from job creators, and the cycle continues.

true!! That's how FDR kept the Depression going for 16 years!!!

dear, Anything was better than Hooverville, literally.

yes Hoover and FDR were the worst of liberalism.

"We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

Rexford Guy Tugwell, Roosevelt Advisor

 

[danielpalos]

If money is taken out of the economy and not spent again it's taken out of the economy. Welfare for people is spent again.

econ 101: money is not put in a mattress. govt can tax money and waste it on crippling welfare or not tax it in which case it is put n a bank and invested for economic growth.

Economic growth is how we got from the stone age to here. It is obviously the best choice.

nothing but the specialness of diversion for your Cause?

unemployment compensation benefits "pump" money back into the economy.

It wouldn't have to be "pumped back into the economy" if it wasn't taken out of the economy in the first place.

yes, it does for simple leveraging of capitalism for paying the debts, and providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

If money is taken out of the economy and not spent again it's taken out of the economy. Welfare for people is spent again.

econ 101: money is not put in a mattress. govt can tax money and waste it on crippling welfare or not tax it in which case it is put n a bank and invested for economic growth.

Economic growth is how we got from the stone age to here. It is obviously the best choice.

nothing but the specialness of diversion for your Cause?

unemployment compensation benefits "pump" money back into the economy.

It wouldn't have to be "pumped back into the economy" if it wasn't taken out of the economy in the first place.

yes and pumped back for crippling welfare consumption and left in for investment and economic growth are very different things. A liberal will lack the IQ to grasp this distinction.

consumption is consumption; and, that requires labor, dear.

 

[danielpalos]

1. It is taken from those who would otherwise make use of it to expand businesses, hire more people, and buy more stuff. They can't, though, because they don't have it any more.
2. Okay, I won't vote for Hillary.

Unemployment benefits aren't spent in the economy?

Of course they are, but first they have to be taken from those who would use it to expand the economy, thus making unemployment benefits less necessary. Essentially, you have a vicious cycle going. Some people are out of a job, we take money away from those who create jobs, more people are out of a job, we take more money away from job creators, and the cycle continues.

true!! That's how FDR kept the Depression going for 16 years!!!

dear, Anything was better than Hooverville, literally.

yes Hoover and FDR were the worst of liberalism.

"We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

Rexford Guy Tugwell, Roosevelt Advisor

yet, Hoover is Only remembered for Hoover-villing the People with the Right's laissez-fair attitude.

 

[OnePercenter]

If money is taken out of the economy and not spent again it's taken out of the economy. Welfare for people is spent again.

econ 101: money is not put in a mattress. govt can tax money and waste it on crippling welfare or not tax it in which case it is put n a bank and invested for economic growth.

Economic growth is how we got from the stone age to here. It is obviously the best choice.

nothing but the specialness of diversion for your Cause?

unemployment compensation benefits "pump" money back into the economy.

It wouldn't have to be "pumped back into the economy" if it wasn't taken out of the economy in the first place.

Spent to stimulate the economy.

 

[hadit]

If money is taken out of the economy and not spent again it's taken out of the economy. Welfare for people is spent again.

econ 101: money is not put in a mattress. govt can tax money and waste it on crippling welfare or not tax it in which case it is put n a bank and invested for economic growth.

Economic growth is how we got from the stone age to here. It is obviously the best choice.

nothing but the specialness of diversion for your Cause?

unemployment compensation benefits "pump" money back into the economy.

It wouldn't have to be "pumped back into the economy" if it wasn't taken out of the economy in the first place.

Spent to stimulate the economy.

Which again would not need as much stimulating had not the money been taken out of it.

 

[danielpalos]

If money is taken out of the economy and not spent again it's taken out of the economy. Welfare for people is spent again.

econ 101: money is not put in a mattress. govt can tax money and waste it on crippling welfare or not tax it in which case it is put n a bank and invested for economic growth.

Economic growth is how we got from the stone age to here. It is obviously the best choice.

nothing but the specialness of diversion for your Cause?

unemployment compensation benefits "pump" money back into the economy.

It wouldn't have to be "pumped back into the economy" if it wasn't taken out of the economy in the first place.

Spent to stimulate the economy.

Which again would not need as much stimulating had not the money been taken out of it.

I agree to disagree; in this case, it is also correcting for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiency and unemployment. socialism can merely bailout capitalism, like usual, by correcting a natural rate of employment inefficiency and solve simple poverty at the same time.

 

[hadit]

econ 101: money is not put in a mattress. govt can tax money and waste it on crippling welfare or not tax it in which case it is put n a bank and invested for economic growth.

Economic growth is how we got from the stone age to here. It is obviously the best choice.

nothing but the specialness of diversion for your Cause?

unemployment compensation benefits "pump" money back into the economy.

It wouldn't have to be "pumped back into the economy" if it wasn't taken out of the economy in the first place.

Spent to stimulate the economy.

Which again would not need as much stimulating had not the money been taken out of it.

I agree to disagree; in this case, it is also correcting for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiency and unemployment. socialism can merely bailout capitalism, like usual, by correcting a natural rate of employment inefficiency and solve simple poverty at the same time.

Government intervention CAN soften natural business cycle downturns. The flip side of the coin, of course, is that it also lowers potential upsides as well. Also, socialism does not solve simple poverty when it is applied by force. It can only do that if all participants do so voluntarily. Applied by force, it removes work incentive and the whole thing collapses.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but the specialness of diversion for your Cause?

unemployment compensation benefits "pump" money back into the economy.

It wouldn't have to be "pumped back into the economy" if it wasn't taken out of the economy in the first place.

Spent to stimulate the economy.

Which again would not need as much stimulating had not the money been taken out of it.

I agree to disagree; in this case, it is also correcting for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiency and unemployment. socialism can merely bailout capitalism, like usual, by correcting a natural rate of employment inefficiency and solve simple poverty at the same time.

Government intervention CAN soften natural business cycle downturns. The flip side of the coin, of course, is that it also lowers potential upsides as well. Also, socialism does not solve simple poverty when it is applied by force. It can only do that if all participants do so voluntarily. Applied by force, it removes work incentive and the whole thing collapses.

i am not sure what you mean; how is fixing a benchmark (minimum) Standard supposed to accomplish what you claim?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

socialism can merely bailout capitalism,

socialism killed 60 million with slow starvation and then Red China switched to Republican capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty.

Imagine lacking the IQ to understand that??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

nothing but the specialness of diversion for your Cause?

unemployment compensation benefits "pump" money back into the economy.

It wouldn't have to be "pumped back into the economy" if it wasn't taken out of the economy in the first place.

Spent to stimulate the economy.

Which again would not need as much stimulating had not the money been taken out of it.

I agree to disagree; in this case, it is also correcting for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiency and unemployment. socialism can merely bailout capitalism, like usual, by correcting a natural rate of employment inefficiency and solve simple poverty at the same time.

Government intervention CAN soften natural business cycle downturns. The flip side of the coin, of course, is that it also lowers potential upsides as well. Also, socialism does not solve simple poverty when it is applied by force. It can only do that if all participants do so voluntarily. Applied by force, it removes work incentive and the whole thing collapses.

1) there are no natural business cycles, but there are recessions caused by govt interference

2) you cant have socialism unless by force or govt violence.

 

[danielpalos]

socialism can merely bailout capitalism,

socialism killed 60 million with slow starvation and then Red China switched to Republican capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty.

Imagine lacking the IQ to understand that??

it was not socialism, but bad management. there are still empty cities over there, just laying around.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

socialism can merely bailout capitalism,

socialism killed 60 million with slow starvation and then Red China switched to Republican capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty.

Imagine lacking the IQ to understand that??

it was not socialism, but bad management. there are still empty cities over there, just laying around.

yes socialist bad management slowly starved 120 million to death while capitalism invented the Iphone and 99% of medical advances; thus socialism is obviously better.

See why we are 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure deadly ignorance?? What other conclusion is possible?

 

[danielpalos]

socialism can merely bailout capitalism,

socialism killed 60 million with slow starvation and then Red China switched to Republican capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty.

Imagine lacking the IQ to understand that??

it was not socialism, but bad management. there are still empty cities over there, just laying around.

yes socialist bad management slowly starved 120 million to death while capitalism invented the Iphone and 99% of medical advances; thus socialism is obviously better.

See why we are 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure deadly ignorance?? What other conclusion is possible?

nothing but special pleading with your same, one trick? Socialism took us to the moon and back with rocket science. How much has our Standard of living improved since then.