What is the goal of capitalism?

[HereWeGoAgain]

Were among their biggest customers. That means we're feeding the monster and turning into exactly what you say.

I'm all for buying American.
Problem is nothing is made here anymore.
With taxes being so high it just makes sense to go overseas to have a product made.

 

[Red Front]

Ironically, Walmart could always fire them and increase the amount of welfare they receive.

And the American people could mitigate that by having a government that guarantees employment to everyone.

 

[Red Front]

Your assertion that a guaranteed job program would lead to the creation of 'unnecessary jobs' is false.

People who can't get a job in the real economy, getting a guaranteed government job aren't going to be the best or the brightest. Of course, the make-work jobs they are given will be mostly unnecessary. How much are they going to be paid?

And let's put to rest the idea that increased taxation would be necessary to fund such a program. The U.S. government has the capacity to employ individuals without having to increase taxes. We have a sovereign currency, and as long as the country's productive capacity (i.e., our GDP) isn't "maxed out", we can create the needed money without causing inflation.

What would be worse than creating millions of unnecessary jobs? Paying for them with
freshly printed money. When these unneeded workers spend their freshly printed money,
is their competition for limited goods and services going to cause prices for those limited goods and services to rise?

After all, they aren't creating any of those useful goods and services.
Sounds like the perfect storm for high inflation.

When we invest in our national infrastructure, we increase production. We make America more productive.

You want these clowns to build roads and bridges? LOL!
That's one way to reduce the use of private cars, making the roads and bridges more dangerous.

People who can't get a job in the real economy...

Your assertion that the "real economy" is exclusively the private sector appears to disregard the multifaceted nature of a nation's economic structure. In reality, a capitalist market economy is an intricate web that comprises both private and public sectors.

To suggest that the public sector or government is somehow detached from the "real economy" is to overlook the essential roles government plays in our economy. The government regulates markets, enforces contracts and property rights, provides public goods and services, and mitigates economic risks, uncertainties, and so-called "externalities". In doing so, it creates a foundation upon which private enterprise can function and prosper.

Furthermore, let's consider your point in the context of a government employment guarantee. Such a program would inject salaries into the economy, which in turn would be used to purchase goods and services. These transactions stimulate demand, which fuels further economic activity. This is not separate from the "real economy"; it's a critical part of it.

Moreover, the work produced by those in the government public works program, be it building infrastructure, providing child daycare, or maintaining public spaces, contributes to increasing economic growth and development. The infrastructure that these government workers will develop, supports commerce, and improve everyone's quality of life. These are not fringe elements of the economy, but core contributions to our collective prosperity.

A capitalist, market economy is not a one-dimensional entity driven solely by the private sector. It is a dynamic, interconnected system that relies on a mix of public and private participation to function effectively. A government system of guaranteed employment, is undoubtedly a part of this system, contributing both to economic activity and to the well-being of the society it serves.

...getting a guaranteed government job aren't going to be the best or the brightest...

Of course, the make-work jobs they are given will be mostly unnecessary. How much are they going to be paid?

Not necessarily, that's a cynical, smug opinion that doesn't necessarily reflect reality. People find themselves stuck in a financial rut for many reasons. I've met plenty of intelligent, capable people who were homeless, living out of a vehicle, sleeping in a tent, or staying at the local Christian homeless mission. People go through hard times and perhaps weren't originally given the same opportunities to actualize their fullest potential, as perhaps a person born and raised in a middle-class or wealthy household.

She's 21 years old, single mother, who lives alone with her two young children. She pays a large sum of money for daycare, She's trying to improve herself and make some time to go to school. The government could help her achieve that, by providing her with a better job, that pays a living wage (enough to live on, without needing food stamps). Helping her pay for her education or vocational job training.

​

He's 31, got out of prison three months ago, and has a horrible employment history gap on his resume, not to speak of the fact that he spent over ten years in prison. He wants to get his life together and become a productive, law-abiding member of his community. The government gave him a job in public works, paying him a living wage, and investing in his training. In a few years, he'll have a much better-looking resume and will be in a better position to get a higher-paying job in the private sector.

Todd thinks these two people and tens of millions of other Americans like them, are just "stupid" and should be consigned to a life of abject poverty, substance abuse, crime..etc. That's just the way, Todd, the champion of the godlike "free market" interprets the world. He sees everything through the lens of what and who is commercially viable. Those who don't appeal to his beloved capitalist market, are thrown away like a piece of trash.

Your assertion that individuals seeking government employment are 'stupid' is not only disrespectful but also fundamentally incorrect. Intelligence is not the sole determinant of an individual's employment status; factors like market fluctuations, sector shifts, and economic downturns all play significant roles.

Moreover, the idea that the government would only offer 'unnecessary' jobs reflects your limited view of the vast array of services that the public sector can and does provide. Here are some examples of sectors where the government could significantly increase its workforce, providing meaningful work that contributes to societal well-being and economic growth:

1. Infrastructure: From construction workers to civil engineers, we need people to build and maintain roads, bridges, public transport systems, and more.
2. Education: We could employ more teachers, teacher's aides, counselors, and support staff in schools and adult education centers.
3. Healthcare: The public health sector could use more doctors, nurses, healthcare technicians, social workers, and mental health professionals.
4. Childcare and Elderly Care: As our population ages and as families increasingly have two working parents, the need for affordable, high-quality care services grows.
5. Conservation: More rangers, biologists, and workers could be employed in maintaining and restoring our national parks and forests.

These jobs aren't unnecessary; they're critical. They meet societal needs, they improve our quality of life, and they create a stronger economy.

By implementing a job guarantee program, the government can reduce the desperation in the labor market and increase the bargaining power of workers. When there is an alternative to low-wage, precarious work in the private sector, private employers will be pressured to offer better wages and working conditions to attract and retain staff. This is not just about justice for workers; it's also about creating a more stable, resilient economy.

Ultimately, every individual deserves the dignity of meaningful work and a living wage. Labeling individuals as 'stupid' and discarding them as if they're disposable doesn't strengthen our society or our economy. It leads to social unrest, higher crime rates, and increased public spending on social safety nets. As a society, we are far better off investing in employment opportunities that not only support individuals and their families but also contribute to the overall health and productivity of our nation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your assertion that the "real economy" is exclusively the private sector appears to disregard the multifaceted nature of a nation's economic structure. In reality, a capitalist market economy is an intricate web that comprises both private and public sectors.

To suggest that the public sector or government is somehow detached from the "real economy" is to overlook the essential roles government plays in our economy. The government regulates markets, enforces contracts and property rights, provides public goods and services, and mitigates economic risks, uncertainties, and so-called "externalities". In doing so, it creates a foundation upon which private enterprise can function and prosper.

Furthermore, let's consider your point in the context of a government employment guarantee. Such a program would inject salaries into the economy, which in turn would be used to purchase goods and services. These transactions stimulate demand, which fuels further economic activity. This is not separate from the "real economy"; it's a critical part of it.

Moreover, the work produced by those in the government public works program, be it building infrastructure, providing child daycare, or maintaining public spaces, contributes to increasing economic growth and development. The infrastructure that these government workers will develop, supports commerce, and improve everyone's quality of life. These are not fringe elements of the economy, but core contributions to our collective prosperity.

A capitalist, market economy is not a one-dimensional entity driven solely by the private sector. It is a dynamic, interconnected system that relies on a mix of public and private participation to function effectively. A government system of guaranteed employment, is undoubtedly a part of this system, contributing both to economic activity and to the well-being of the society it serves.



Not necessarily, that's a cynical, smug opinion that doesn't necessarily reflect reality. People find themselves stuck in a financial rut for many reasons. I've met plenty of intelligent, capable people who were homeless, living out of a vehicle, sleeping in a tent, or staying at the local Christian homeless mission. People go through hard times and perhaps weren't originally given the same opportunities to actualize their fullest potential, as perhaps a person born and raised in a middle-class or wealthy household.

View attachment 809885​

She's 21 years old, single mother, who lives alone with her two young children. She pays a large sum of money for daycare, She's trying to improve herself and make some time to go to school. The government could help her achieve that, by providing her with a better job, that pays a living wage (enough to live on, without needing food stamps). Helping her pay for her education or vocational job training.

View attachment 809889
​

He's 31, got out of prison three months ago, and has a horrible employment history gap on his resume, not to speak of the fact that he spent over ten years in prison. He wants to get his life together and become a productive, law-abiding member of his community. The government gave him a job in public works, paying him a living wage, and investing in his training. In a few years, he'll have a much better-looking resume and will be in a better position to get a higher-paying job in the private sector.

Todd thinks these two people and tens of millions of other Americans like them, are just "stupid" and should be consigned to a life of abject poverty, substance abuse, crime..etc. That's just the way, Todd, the champion of the godlike "free market" interprets the world. He sees everything through the lens of what and who is commercially viable. Those who don't appeal to his beloved capitalist market, are thrown away like a piece of trash.

Your assertion that individuals seeking government employment are 'stupid' is not only disrespectful but also fundamentally incorrect. Intelligence is not the sole determinant of an individual's employment status; factors like market fluctuations, sector shifts, and economic downturns all play significant roles.

Moreover, the idea that the government would only offer 'unnecessary' jobs reflects your limited view of the vast array of services that the public sector can and does provide. Here are some examples of sectors where the government could significantly increase its workforce, providing meaningful work that contributes to societal well-being and economic growth:

1. Infrastructure: From construction workers to civil engineers, we need people to build and maintain roads, bridges, public transport systems, and more.
2. Education: We could employ more teachers, teacher's aides, counselors, and support staff in schools and adult education centers.
3. Healthcare: The public health sector could use more doctors, nurses, healthcare technicians, social workers, and mental health professionals.
4. Childcare and Elderly Care: As our population ages and as families increasingly have two working parents, the need for affordable, high-quality care services grows.
5. Conservation: More rangers, biologists, and workers could be employed in maintaining and restoring our national parks and forests.

These jobs aren't unnecessary; they're critical. They meet societal needs, they improve our quality of life, and they create a stronger economy.

By implementing a job guarantee program, the government can reduce the desperation in the labor market and increase the bargaining power of workers. When there is an alternative to low-wage, precarious work in the private sector, private employers will be pressured to offer better wages and working conditions to attract and retain staff. This is not just about justice for workers; it's also about creating a more stable, resilient economy.

Ultimately, every individual deserves the dignity of meaningful work and a living wage. Labeling individuals as 'stupid' and discarding them as if they're disposable doesn't strengthen our society or our economy. It leads to social unrest, higher crime rates, and increased public spending on social safety nets. As a society, we are far better off investing in employment opportunities that not only support individuals and their families but also contribute to the overall health and productivity of our nation.

Your assertion that the "real economy" is exclusively the private sector appears to disregard the multifaceted nature of a nation's economic structure.

Yeah, that's pretty much what the real economy means.
How much government employment can be considered "real economy"?
10%? 15? And those would be people who could get jobs in the private sector,
not the low skilled and unemployables you're talking about

Furthermore, let's consider your point in the context of a government employment guarantee. Such a program would inject salaries into the economy, which in turn would be used to purchase goods and services.

Yes, that's why it's inflationary. Handing people printed money for their fake jobs so they can compete to buy the same limited amount of goods and services that were available already.

Todd thinks these two people and tens of millions of other Americans like them, are just "stupid" and should be consigned to a life of abject poverty, substance abuse, crime..etc. That's just the way, Todd, the champion of the godlike "free market" interprets the world.

You think the guy without the skills or the reliability to get and keep a $15/hour job working the fry basket at Wendy's is going to contribute to our economy when he's getting a guaranteed (how much again?) $20/hour? $30/hour? More? at a make-work government job.

The government gave him a job in public works, paying him a living wage, and investing in his training. In a few years, he'll have a much better-looking resume and will be in a better position to get a higher-paying job in the private sector.

"Joe, I see here that you worked for a couple of years at one of those government
make-work jobs, are you ready for some real work? 40 hours a week?"

"Nah, I'll just sit on my ass at my no show/no work government gig"

• Infrastructure: From construction workers to civil engineers, we need people to build and maintain roads, bridges, public transport systems, and more.

Excellent! Unskilled unemployables should definitely build trains and bridges.

• Education: We could employ more teachers, teacher's aides, counselors, and support staff in schools and adult education centers.

Excellent! Unskilled unemployables should definitely work with our children.

• Healthcare: The public health sector could use more doctors, nurses, healthcare technicians, social workers, and mental health professionals.

Excellent! Unskilled unemployables will have no problem becoming doctors and nurses, working with opioids.

 

[Red Front]

Your assertion that the "real economy" is exclusively the private sector appears to disregard the multifaceted nature of a nation's economic structure.

Yeah, that's pretty much what the real economy means.
How much government employment can be considered "real economy"?
10%? 15? And those would be people who could get jobs in the private sector,
not the low skilled and unemployables you're talking about

Furthermore, let's consider your point in the context of a government employment guarantee. Such a program would inject salaries into the economy, which in turn would be used to purchase goods and services.

Yes, that's why it's inflationary. Handing people printed money for their fake jobs so they can compete to buy the same limited amount of goods and services that were available already.

Todd thinks these two people and tens of millions of other Americans like them, are just "stupid" and should be consigned to a life of abject poverty, substance abuse, crime..etc. That's just the way, Todd, the champion of the godlike "free market" interprets the world.

You think the guy without the skills or the reliability to get and keep a $15/hour job working the fry basket at Wendy's is going to contribute to our economy when he's getting a guaranteed (how much again?) $20/hour? $30/hour? More? at a make-work government job.

The government gave him a job in public works, paying him a living wage, and investing in his training. In a few years, he'll have a much better-looking resume and will be in a better position to get a higher-paying job in the private sector.

"Joe, I see here that you worked for a couple of years at one of those government
make-work jobs, are you ready for some real work? 40 hours a week?"

"Nah, I'll just sit on my ass at my no show/no work government gig"

• Infrastructure: From construction workers to civil engineers, we need people to build and maintain roads, bridges, public transport systems, and more.

Excellent! Unskilled unemployables should definitely build trains and bridges.

• Education: We could employ more teachers, teacher's aides, counselors, and support staff in schools and adult education centers.

Excellent! Unskilled unemployables should definitely work with our children.

• Healthcare: The public health sector could use more doctors, nurses, healthcare technicians, social workers, and mental health professionals.

Excellent! Unskilled unemployables will have no problem becoming doctors and nurses, working with opioids.

Your argument rests on the assumption that people who might be part of a government employment guarantee program are 'unemployable' or 'unskilled'. This is a derogatory and simplistic perspective. It's a misunderstanding of economic reality, particularly during economic downturns when even skilled and educated workers can find themselves out of work through no fault of their own.

Let's address the issue of government employment not being part of the 'real economy'. The public sector's contributions to the economy are as 'real' as those of the private sector. They provide essential services, drive demand, and stimulate economic activity. Infrastructure investment leads to improved productivity in the private sector. Quality education builds a more competent workforce. Public healthcare systems lead to a healthier, more productive population. These are tangible contributions to the economy.

Your assertion that a jobs guarantee would be 'inflationary' because it gives people money to compete for 'limited goods and services' reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how economies function. Firstly, a job guarantee would only be providing income for work done, not 'handing people printed money willy nilly'.

Secondly, one of the primary factors contributing to inflation is excessive demand relative to supply. A jobs guarantee would actually boost supply by mobilizing unused labor and resources to produce goods and services.

As for your assumption that individuals with low-skilled jobs are 'unreliable' or unwilling to work, it's unjust and unfounded. Many people working in low-wage jobs are among the most reliable and hard-working individuals in our society. They often juggle multiple jobs and face challenging conditions. Offering them stable employment with decent wages will not make them lazy; instead, it provides them a solid platform for growth and self-improvement.

Furthermore, your sarcastic comments about the suggested sectors of public employment miss the mark. Nobody is suggesting that untrained individuals should be building bridges or performing surgery. Instead, a government employment guarantee program would involve training and developing the skills of these workers, allowing them to contribute meaningfully to these sectors. In other words, this is not about putting unskilled workers into skilled positions but rather about creating pathways for people to develop their skills.

The systemic exploitation of workers by corporations like Walmart, which pay poverty wages and rely on government subsidies to keep their workers afloat, is a disgrace. However, the solution is not to accept this as an immutable fact but to challenge it, and a government jobs guarantee is one powerful way to do that.

Rather than maintaining a system that traps people in poverty, let's create a system that invests in our greatest resource: our people. That's not only economically smart, it's also a matter of basic human dignity and decency.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your argument rests on the assumption that people who might be part of a government employment guarantee program are 'unemployable' or 'unskilled'. This is a derogatory and simplistic perspective. It's a misunderstanding of economic reality, particularly during economic downturns when even skilled and educated workers can find themselves out of work through no fault of their own.

Let's address the issue of government employment not being part of the 'real economy'. The public sector's contributions to the economy are as 'real' as those of the private sector. They provide essential services, drive demand, and stimulate economic activity. Infrastructure investment leads to improved productivity in the private sector. Quality education builds a more competent workforce. Public healthcare systems lead to a healthier, more productive population. These are tangible contributions to the economy.

Your assertion that a jobs guarantee would be 'inflationary' because it gives people money to compete for 'limited goods and services' reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how economies function. Firstly, a job guarantee would only be providing income for work done, not 'handing people printed money willy nilly'.

Secondly, one of the primary factors contributing to inflation is excessive demand relative to supply. A jobs guarantee would actually boost supply by mobilizing unused labor and resources to produce goods and services.

As for your assumption that individuals with low-skilled jobs are 'unreliable' or unwilling to work, it's unjust and unfounded. Many people working in low-wage jobs are among the most reliable and hard-working individuals in our society. They often juggle multiple jobs and face challenging conditions. Offering them stable employment with decent wages will not make them lazy; instead, it provides them a solid platform for growth and self-improvement.

Furthermore, your sarcastic comments about the suggested sectors of public employment miss the mark. Nobody is suggesting that untrained individuals should be building bridges or performing surgery. Instead, a government employment guarantee program would involve training and developing the skills of these workers, allowing them to contribute meaningfully to these sectors. In other words, this is not about putting unskilled workers into skilled positions but rather about creating pathways for people to develop their skills.

The systemic exploitation of workers by corporations like Walmart, which pay poverty wages and rely on government subsidies to keep their workers afloat, is a disgrace. However, the solution is not to accept this as an immutable fact but to challenge it, and a government jobs guarantee is one powerful way to do that.

Rather than maintaining a system that traps people in poverty, let's create a system that invests in our greatest resource: our people. That's not only economically smart, it's also a matter of basic human dignity and decency.

Your argument rests on the assumption that people who might be part of a government employment guarantee program are 'unemployable' or 'unskilled'.

If they're skilled and employable, why do they have to rely on a government job?
How much are these unskilled workers going to be paid?

Your assertion that a jobs guarantee would be 'inflationary' because it gives people money to compete for 'limited goods and services' reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how economies function.

How many of these unskilled workers will the government hire?
What's the total amount they'll be paid?
$500 billion? $1 trillion? More?

Add $1 trillion to demand with $0 added to supply, sounds inflationary to me.

A jobs guarantee would actually boost supply by mobilizing unused labor and resources to produce goods and services.

What goods and services are these new government workers creating?
Cars? Housing? Electronics? Food? Or red tape and make-work?

As for your assumption that individuals with low-skilled jobs are 'unreliable' or unwilling to work, it's unjust and unfounded.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Workers who don't have the skills or reliability to get a job in the private sector are clearly too useless for a higher paying guaranteed government job.

Nobody is suggesting that untrained individuals should be building bridges or performing surgery.

Nobody but you.

The systemic exploitation of workers by corporations like Walmart, which pay poverty wages

If your lack of skills forces you to work for slave wages you deserve slave wages.

 

[Red Front]

Your argument rests on the assumption that people who might be part of a government employment guarantee program are 'unemployable' or 'unskilled'.

If they're skilled and employable, why do they have to rely on a government job?
How much are these unskilled workers going to be paid?

Your assertion that a jobs guarantee would be 'inflationary' because it gives people money to compete for 'limited goods and services' reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how economies function.

How many of these unskilled workers will the government hire?
What's the total amount they'll be paid?
$500 billion? $1 trillion? More?

Add $1 trillion to demand with $0 added to supply, sounds inflationary to me.

A jobs guarantee would actually boost supply by mobilizing unused labor and resources to produce goods and services.

What goods and services are these new government workers creating?
Cars? Housing? Electronics? Food? Or red tape and make-work?

As for your assumption that individuals with low-skilled jobs are 'unreliable' or unwilling to work, it's unjust and unfounded.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Workers who don't have the skills or reliability to get a job in the private sector are clearly too useless for a higher paying guaranteed government job.

Nobody is suggesting that untrained individuals should be building bridges or performing surgery.

Nobody but you.

The systemic exploitation of workers by corporations like Walmart, which pay poverty wages

If your lack of skills forces you to work for slave wages you deserve slave wages.

A government jobs guarantee could serve as a tool for human capital development, providing training and experience for people who might otherwise be left out of the labor market, forced into a state of abject poverty, and hence become more susceptible to turning to crime and other illegal activities to survive. It's good for society to help everyone and not throw people in the trash bin as you're essentially arguing for.

A government job guarantee can help individuals acquire new skills, become more employable, and potentially transition into higher-paying jobs in the private sector.

As to the question of how much these workers will be paid, that would depend on the specifics of the program. The aim would be to provide a living wage, allowing people to meet their basic needs and lead dignified lives. The total cost would be a function of the number of workers and their wages, and while it could be substantial, it's crucial to consider the economic and social benefits of such a program. Reducing unemployment, increasing productive output, boosting demand, and mitigating poverty and income inequality can have far-reaching positive impacts on the economy and society.

In the long run, it's more cost-effective to employ and train people than to throw them away, like garbage, or give them food stamps and cash assistance.

Your claim that adding to demand without adding to supply would be inflationary oversimplifies the dynamics of an economy. As I previously mentioned, a jobs guarantee program would aim to mobilize unused resources and labor to increase production, thereby boosting supply. Also, the program would aim to employ workers in sectors that directly contribute to economic productivity such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare. They would be producing public goods and services, which are real contributions to the economy.

Your dismissive comments about workers who are currently in low-wage jobs reflect a troubling lack of empathy and understanding. No human being deserves to live on 'slave wages'. Every worker deserves dignity, fair treatment, and a wage that allows them to meet their basic needs. The existence of low-wage jobs is not a natural law; it's a product of economic and political decisions and can be changed through different decisions. A government jobs guarantee is one such decision that can help transform our labor market for the better. It's a recognition of the basic dignity of all workers and a commitment to a more just and equitable economy.

PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES:

1. Infrastructure: Roads, bridges, public transportation, ports, airports, public utilities (like water and sewage systems).
2. Public Safety and Justice: Police services, fire departments, disaster relief, emergency medical services, court systems, prisons, public defense.
3. Education: Public schools, state universities, vocational training programs, special education services, libraries, educational research.
4. Public Health: Vaccination programs, disease control, community health clinics, mental health services, drug and alcohol abuse programs, public hospitals.
5. Social Services: Welfare programs, social security, unemployment benefits, disability services, child protective services, food and housing assistance.
6. Defense: Military and national defense, intelligence agencies, homeland security.
7. Environmental Protection: National parks, wildlife preservation, pollution control, recycling programs, renewable energy development, environmental research.
8. Science and Technology: Space exploration (NASA), research and development, scientific studies and surveys, patents registration, tech incubation programs.
9. Cultural Services: Museums, art galleries, public broadcasting, historic site preservation, cultural celebrations.
10. Regulatory Agencies: Securities and exchange commission, food and drug administration, environmental protection agency, federal trade commission.
11. Public Works: Maintenance of public buildings and spaces, street cleaning, waste management, snow removal.
12. Economic Stability: Central banking, economic stimulus programs, tariffs and trade regulation, job creation programs.
13. International Affairs: Diplomatic services, international aid, participation in international organizations.
14. Planning and Development: Zoning regulation, city planning, public housing, rural development programs.
15. Agriculture: Farm subsidies, agricultural research, animal and plant health inspection, food safety inspection.

These goods and services not only contribute to the overall functioning and well-being of society but also provide countless employment opportunities in a wide range of fields and professions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A government jobs guarantee could serve as a tool for human capital development, providing training and experience for people who might otherwise be left out of the labor market, forced into a state of abject poverty, and hence become more susceptible to turning to crime and other illegal activities to survive. It's good for society to help everyone and not throw people in the trash bin as you're essentially arguing for.

Join the military.

 

[Red Front]

Join the military.

Some people could do that, but those who can't would still have a government job, if they can't find one in the private sector for whatever reason. There are many reasons why people find themselves in a rut and in need of some help. Throwing them away is more expensive in the long run.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your claim that adding to demand without adding to supply would be inflationary oversimplifies the dynamics of an economy. As I previously mentioned, a jobs guarantee program would aim to mobilize unused resources and labor to increase production, thereby boosting supply. Also, the program would aim to employ workers in sectors that directly contribute to economic productivity such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare. They would be producing public goods and services, which are real contributions to the economy.

Your claim that adding to demand without adding to supply would be inflationary oversimplifies the dynamics of an economy.

I think it cuts right to the core of the matter.

As I previously mentioned, a jobs guarantee program would aim to mobilize unused resources and labor to increase production, thereby boosting supply

Boosting the supply of what?

Also, the program would aim to employ workers in sectors that directly contribute to economic productivity such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare.

I know, that's hilarious!
What other sectors can these unskilled workers enter?

How about airline pilots?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some people could do that, but those who can't would still have a government job, if they can't find one in the private sector for whatever reason. There are many reasons why people find themselves in a rut and in need of some help. Throwing them away is more expensive in the long run.

Make work jobs are expensive too.

 

[dblack]

Heard a good joke yesterday: "Surplus value"

LOL

 

[Red Front]

I think it cuts right to the core of the matter.

Your assumption is wrong. Keeping people on poverty wages, dependent on government subsidies is more expensive than employing them. Both economically and socially it's more expensive.

Boosting the supply of what?

Infrastructure development and a host of other tasks which I've already mentioned and you conveniently ignore. The supply of needed goods and services translates into less poverty, less social instability, more peace, freedom, and better health. etc. Poverty is devastating. When people don't have enough to meet their basic needs, it creates chaos in their lives and in their environment (crime, substance abuse, incarceration, broken families, bad health). Making sure everyone has a job that allows them to meet their needs, acquire a valuable skill, and an education, stimulates economic growth. It's good for everyone.

I know, that's hilarious! What other sectors can these unskilled workers enter? How about airline pilots?

Airlines aren't nationalized or run by the government. They can become pilots in the military or in some othe government agency. Yes indeed. With training, some of them could do that. How is that hilarious? There are many jobs they can do, I already provided a list.

Capitalists would have to compete with the government to attract and keep workers, and that's good. Higher wages for everyone. They want a desperate working class, that will accept whatever horrible terms are offered to them by their wealthy, powerful employers.

 

[Red Front]

Heard a good joke yesterday: "Surplus value"

LOL

That's another way of saying "profits". If your capitalist master pays you $100 daily, you better produce $200+ daily. After overhead, the capitalist draws surplus value from what was produced. Mass production has always been a social endeavor and project, not a private one.

 

[dblack]

That's another way of saying "profits". If your capitalist master pays you $100 daily, you better produce $200+ daily. After overhead, the capitalist draws surplus value from what was produced. Mass production has always been a social endeavor and project, not a private one.

It's another way of failing to understanding the service capitalists provide society, of pretending their income is "money for nothing".

Marx was an envious little twat. Like you.

 

[Likkmee]

NASDAQ Composite - 45 Year Historical Chart

Interactive chart of the NASDAQ Composite stock market index since 1971. Historical data is inflation-adjusted using the headline CPI and each data point represents the month-end closing value. The current month is updated on an hourly basis with today's latest value.

www.macrotrends.net

 

[Red Front]

It's another way of failing to understanding the service capitalists provide society, of pretending their income is "money for nothing".

Marx was a envious little twat. Like you.

I'm much more impressed by highly skilled workers than the parasites that employ/exploit them.

 

[ralfy]

Free markets are unachievable there is an inherent tendency to firm consolidation which leads to oligopolies and monopolies.
A bunch of small firms competing doesn't strike me as a utopia just as short-term model.

Utopia
"a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions"

Utopia in this case refers to a classless society.

Both Communism and free market capitalism envision that via technology developed leading to utopia made possible through an abundance of resources.

The first argues that this takes place through cooperation, and the second through competition.

Finally, it doesn't take place during the process but only when there's an abundance of resources.

 

[Red Front]

Utopia in this case refers to a classless society.

Both Communism and free market capitalism envision that via technology developed leading to utopia made possible through an abundance of resources.

The first argues that this takes place through cooperation, and the second through competition.

Finally, it doesn't take place during the process but only when there's an abundance of resources.

I would say scientific, not so much utopian. Engels wrote "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" to dispell this belief, that modern socialism is "utopian". The work can be broadly separated into two main sections. The first deals with what Engels refers to as "Utopian Socialism," which represents early socialist philosophies such as those proposed by Fourier, Owen, and Saint-Simon. Engels argues that these early attempts at advocating for socialism, while well-intentioned, lacked a thorough understanding of the forces that lead to the establishment and perpetuation of capitalist societies. Hence, their solutions are deemed "utopian" in the sense that they are not firmly rooted in material conditions but are instead idealistic.

Utopian Socialism = Idealistic
Materialist Marxist-Engelian Socialism = Scientific

The second part of the book, "Scientific Socialism," presents a contrast to the first. Engels outlines the principles of dialectical materialism, a way of understanding history and societal change in terms of contradictions and conflicts within the economic system (the "base"), which then shape the political, legal, and cultural aspects (the "superstructure"). Scientific socialism is "scientific" in the sense that it is based on a systematic and empirical study of the socioeconomic structures of society.

Engels argues that a proletariat revolution, one brought about by the working class (i.e. proletariat), is an inevitable result of the inherent contradictions within the capitalist system. The proletariat, once in control of the means of production, would then establish a socialist society, fundamentally changing the economic and social relations of society.

So, "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" is about the evolution of socialist thought from its early utopian ideas to its more rigorous, materialistic interpretation as articulated by Marx and Engels.

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

Engels' most concise exposition of Marxism

www.marxists.org

It's a good book and it's free.

 

[Quentin111]

As I wrote above, in the USSR (at least officially) there was no unemployment. Many businesses needed workers. But labor productivity was low.