Biden says no tax increases for incomes under $400k- It's not true.

Uh huh. They run deficits.

Biden will be the first Democrat I've supported--ever.

Economists want the government to spend more money now. You're talking about the bookkeeping.

You learned what the velocity of money is. So what?

Insulting nonsense and presumes to know what I'm thinking.

Interesting. How did Germany create a war industry for WW2?

How about the private sector? You're looking more and more like a socialist.

You're debating? Hohhhh-Kayyyyyyy...

So, German hyperinflation in the 1920s was caused by "excessive demand on available resources" and not the government printing money?

Do you realize the above doesn't make sense?

Such s burden... having to fly economic BS past an economist.

 

"Inalienable", "self evident rights" exist by birthright. They are enshrined in law, not open to amendment.

Unlike like the various amendments re property rights in the constitution, or the obsolete 2nd amendment required for defense of frontier communities before establishment of a strong US military.

Utter nonsense. Self-evident rights, eg life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, exist by birthright.

And those people could not foresee economic realities 2 centuries in the future.

And so we have this nonsense and dysfunction:

Republican governor: McConnell's 'let the states go bankrupt' talk....
... is 'ridiculous' and 'dangerous'

https://qoshe.com/daily-kos-us/joan...pt-talk-ridiculous-and-dangerous/71239142/amp

Disproved above.

I know the effect your reptilian brain is having on your capacity to understand the difference between moral and a-moral.

You do claim the US government can function in an orderly fashion according to provisions set out in the 18th century constitution.

Frequent insane US government shut-downs, and political dysfunction resulting in citizens losing their life savings in a pandemic put the lie to the Constitution being capable of "dealing with every situation".

 

Your "news" source...

https://todayheadline.co/

This is what they say about themselves:

Todayheadline the independent news and topics discovery

A home-grown and independent news and topic aggregation . displays breaking news linking to news websites all around the world. Our mission is to help provide people with useful links to the news and topics they need to read. Todayheadline was launched in 2019 We matches breaking news and topics in real time So whatever your interest, you can always find fresh thinking and unique topics and we crafted keyword based on news and topic specifications delivering relevant topics to users, and relevant readers to publishers, in seconds.​

Want to know more about your news source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headline_Daily

Half-baked nonsense.

 

But the people don't understand that governmt deficits are not.... oh, never mind.

Ah ha, that explains a lot. OTOH, I thought Trump made more sense than Hillary, re facing up to the reality of poverty, in 2016.

Here is similar orthodox nonsense to what you are spouting:

https://todayheadline.co/the-case-against-modern-monetary-theory/


The case against Modern Monetary Theory

"Thanks to Covid-19, government debt is rising rapidly and, for that matter, appropriately. In the face of recurring lockdowns, we are better off allowing companies and workers to enter a period of economic “hibernation” in the hope that, once the virus is under control, they can thaw out. The alternative of multiple business failures and mass unemployment is of no use to anyone.

In the process, however, we are in effect borrowing from our collective economic futures. At some point, some of us will be presented with a bill which, if hibernation policies succeed, we will be in a reasonable position to pay. The political process will decide whether that bill comes in the form of higher taxes, more austerity, rising inflation or eventual default. That, I’m afraid, is the deficit reality."

Pathetic. He's saying that if the pandemic persists, the government will go broke and we'll all starve, because of a "deficit reality".

So it's irrelevant. Resources development, not money supply and a "velocity of money" , is the issue for sustainable economic prosperity.

Addressed above. Feel free to offer a substantive rebuttal

Not surprised; the free marketeer needs my assistance to answer that question.

Fascism.

The private sector uses all these inputs supplied by the government sector. It's a partnership.

I'm attempting to ease you out of your obsolete economic orthodoxy ...but it's as difficult as explaining to the Pope why he should ditch the Old Testament...

There you go, persisting with your illusion that money is a real resource. (The Weimar republic should have run a totally planned
economy without money until resources and productivity could recover and once again match basic needs of the population).

Let's see: "promote research to invigorate productive capacity," eg, by enabling the state to spend its own currency in order to fund such research, instead of relying on taxation for such research, which no-one wants to pay, as a source of funds.

Unless you are content to let the free market rip with whatever useless destructive activity the free market feels inclined to indulge in.

Doesn't make sense?

No, like having to teach economic truth to blind ideologues.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=46192

MMT provides a comprehensive macroeconomic framework, which allows us to understand that the problem into the future will not be excessive deficits and/or public debt.

Rather, the challenge is to generate productivity innovations derived from investment in public infrastructure, education and job creation.

And relax about the deficits and record debt.

 

Note the author of the article:

"The author is HSBC’s Senior Economic Adviser and author of ‘Grave New World’."

There you go again, not offering a reasoned rebuttal of the points made.

 

And, somehow, you are STILL unaware that "pursuit of happiness" refers to property rights.
How do you not know this?

Correct.
Nothing here changes the fact you are expected to provide the means to exercise your rights.
Funny how you cannot address this.

And yet, they set up a system that has the means to deal with -all- such realities.
How do you not know this?

You are aware that your statement above is false,
Your -claims- prove or disprove nothing.
How do you not know this?

And yet, the fact remains:
Our governments currently have al the tools they need to deal with all the issues they, and their people, face.
Funny how you cannot address this.

At this point its clear - you're long on regurgitation, and vacant on understanding -- while you can repeat your dogma over and over you do not understand it well enogh to address valid points made against it.
Someone has made you into a good little monkey, and you;re happy to be in their service.

 

I told you several times what I think is a problem with MMT and the above is not even close to what I wrote.

Why don't you come up with a decent source!

Hmmm. How does that work for countries like Switzerland and Singapore?

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/natural_resources_income/

Do you go to your doctor and lecture him or her?

Hyperinflation or a planned economy? I'll take Door #3.

Another one of your screwy cities. Egads.

 

Nothing penetrates with you.

 

No, the gov't doesn't need to tell anyone who to love or not to love. How'd you come up with that?

By saying the word love, I meant to care enough about the citizens of the country that it looks out for the well being of All Americans. And provides a crutch when needed.

Collective ruled by a handful? We The People vote our gov't. The gov't has a president. A House of Representatives(545), Senators(100), USSC(9). 655 Americans represent the 300,000,000 people. Each and every year, We The People, elect those we choose to represent us.
That's not a handful.
But I did read a proposal some years ago, we should increase congresspeople. For we now have 300,000,000 people and when we set the number of congress people, we had maybe 150,000,000 people. So, we could add more representatives. But we are no where near a handful.

Globalism, is here to stay. Technology and speed of travel means things can happen at the speed of electrons.
The world is shrinking due to technology.
We are living, buying, selling, and engaging in the entire world. That is not going to change and will only go further towards the world shrinking.

Globalism is not going to go away.
We can lead, which we were doing, follow, or sit it out, which is what tRUMP wants to do.
Countries are forging deals with other countries while we just watch and fight with other countries. We will be left out of setting rules for how to progress globally. And then we will have to live by others rules, if we decide to stay a country an economy that wants to sell all over the world.

 

The Tax and Spend clause is about maintaining the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and how Congress will raise the revenues to do so, it is NOT about the People in the Constitution.

I don't "choose" that is the text. The Constitution recognizes the People, the States and the United States the federal government and CLEARLY the text says the welfare of the United States, not the People, not the State, the federal government.

Dodging the question, is the government obliged to supply me a gun? Yes or no?

Property rights is no just real estate and in communism you don't own your house it is supplied to you by the government.

You have yet to show me a copy of this social contract and I never signed one. Does that mean I have no morals or morality of course not stop trying to insinuate such a thing. Morality doesn't come from the government for me.

No you can't because you misrepresent the Tax and Spend clause which is it's proper name.

This is not about use and reptiles or any other animal.

Competition is what makes an economy thrive and government should get out of the way other than to adjudicate contract disputes or criminal acts. It's what brings new products from computers to medicines and brings out the best of everyone in the market place. Remove the competition and we get Russian made cars which were some of the worst ever produced.

It was quite sensible as written.

Acting in their own self interest.

If you want to live above that level then do the things that will get you there, if it is not in your self interest it is not for the government to take from others to give to you.

What a dodge Says who, it all it's existence when has the government had an obligation to supply a gun to someone who can't afford one? That is your argument that the government and society have an obligation to supply you the means to exercise your rights. Where is my printing press?

And another dodge. There is a claimed right to abortion, does government have an obligation to supply that abortion? Of course not.

See above. Again you misrepresent the Tax and Spend clause.

And both even charging for their services struggle to operate. The aren't FREE, someone, the people paying taxes would be paying for you "free" postal service and public transportation.

Still waiting for my copy of it.

False again, go study up on the Pilgrims. Go study up on what happened when Gingrich and Kasich passed welfare reform with stricter work rules. There's LOTS of able bodied people who love just sitting back and collect money from the government. Disability was set up for people injured on the job and all this time with evermore safety in the workplace and fewer and fewer physically demanding jobs disablity payments have soared because people can get doctors to fill out the formers and the government bureaucrats wanting to keep their jobs wanting to expand the numbers collecting.

Like I said they are life choices and people rise above everyday. The solution is to give school choice including private schools, increase police and law enforcement to stop the crime, stop the drug and alcohol abuse, stop the children out of wedlock and children without fathers in their lives.

The collapse of Venezuela is because the Venezuela government and yes people support everything for free and provided to you until they see what little they are getting and how they are prevented from acting in their own self interest to improve their lot.

Which are we beating

Denmark
Germany
Mexico
Jordan
Australia
Norway
France
United Kingdom
Cuba
Belgium
Japan
Russia
Italy
Chile
Switzerland
Brazil
UAE
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait

And those are just major countries. We also rank #1 as to total GDP and 8th on GDP per capita.
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

 

Spending Power. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Two points:

1. As already noticed re the phrase "general welfare": in constitutions it generally refers to the people......."....empowered by the document to enact laws to promote the general welfare of the people, which is sometimes worded as the public welfare".

BUT

2. Granting your assertion that the phrase refers to the government of the US (in the US Constitution cited above), it surely remains a desirable goal of government to manage an economy that works for all, by providing for the general welfare as far as possible.

Now here's the thing: the Constitution was written before the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, and before Marx was motivated to consider the unjust working conditions faced by workers in the rapidly appearing factories and mines in the early 19th century.

Yes...an inadequate text that fails to provide for the welfare of all citizens, as discussed above.

No. Btw, the 2nd amendment is an anachronism written before the US had a permanent standing army.
Gun ownership is not an inalienable right.

Ditto.

Morality exists by rule of law requiring government (or religious exhortation). Justice requires a social contract; anything less is merely a reversion to the animal kingdom.

Disputed above. The tax and spend clause is inadequate for good governance, on behalf of the common welfare. Obviously. That's why those awful ghettos blight the inner cities today, entirely unnecessarily.

Indeed it IS about humans escaping the negative aspects (as opposed to the positive effects) of instinctive, self-interested, survival, competitive, behaviours ruling the animal kingdom from which we evolved.

"....other than to adjudicate contract disputes or criminal acts". Yes, many homicides and suicides have resulted from egregious, unchecked, competition.

Friedman: "morality is not to do good to others".

I didn't watch it to the end.

How about "do unto others as you would have them do unto you to".

But as already observed, animals (and to a lesser extent, humans) don't naturally do that ...that's why the 'Golden Rule' was created....they obey instinctive survival mechanisms, which is why humans have created government and rule of law to counter-balance self-interest.

Marx should have said: "From each according to ability, to each according to need AND special effort".

Apart from that, we all act in our own self-interest all the time, so do animals....

Note:
1. it is obviously always in my self-interest to live above the poverty level.
2. good government does not NEED to take from others to give to me; rather government can implement real full employment (but don't go asking Friedman how to do it...).

Ownership of guns and printing presses is not a right. (It's a privilege, maybe).

Access to above poverty employment, a basis of life and liberty in our monetarist economy, is a fundamental right. (See UNUDHR art. 23)

No. But:
1. "abortion rights" relate to the the bodies of only half the population, so are not basic rights.
2. the need for "abortion rights" is related to economic circumstances, so while abortion rights are not "self-evident", economic circumstances need to be addressed by the law.

Already addressed. The tax and spend clause is inadequate as a basis for an economy that works for all.

If the resources and productive capacity of an economy are sufficiently abundant and properly utilized, then the sovereign currency-issuing government can fund them directly, without taxing or borrowing from the private sector (you and me).

[That's your first lesson in MMT; free... because no excess demand on resources was required to present the lesson to you].

If you want to get rid of those inner-city ghettos, you will need to amend the constitution from "the general welfare" (meaning the US government) to "the general welfare" (meaning the people). Then you will have automatically signed up to and received a copy of the social contract.

All those problems can be banished via implementation of the right and the responsibility to participate at above poverty level...in an economy that works for all (see the Job Guarantee of MMT).

Some people rise, other don't. A job guarantee will ensure all rise, and simultaneously decrease the huge sums spent on corrections, drug and ill-health 'industries'. Public education teaching of the perils of profit-driven production aimed at junk-consumerism supported by mindless advertising is also required.
Unless you implement those policies, you will only be 'placing the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff'.

No. Like I said, the government was successful while the socialist state could fund its programs on the back of oil revenues.
[But many nations are too reliant on a single commodity, which is a global issue].

Meanwhile, look at the world's #2 by GDP.

The Chinese economy advanced 4.9% yoy in Q3 2020

According to the most recent forecast released at the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on Sept. 16, 2020, U.S. GDP growth is expected to contract by 3.7% in 2020.

(and since we can expect China's economy to keep growing in Q4 2020, the full year result will also be positive)

 

If you cannot allow a 'corrective' role for the public sector, then you won't like MMT.

'Resources' development includes 'services' development and exporting, very high in the case of those two countries, enabling the imports of non-locally supplied goods. (Plus there's always a quid in tax havens...in the case of the Swiss..)

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/natural_resources_income/

Doctors generally follow science rather than mythology.

There you go, rejecting even an element of a planned economy, putting your faith in "invisible hand" markets.

It's called the TINA fallacy ("There is no alternative").

Certainly debunks your monetarist dogma.

 

I disagree with this part of your post. Neo-Mercantilism trade policies are gaining popularity, economists are admitting globalism has been bad, and protectionism is taking many many forms. There really isn't a lot of practical difference between Trump banning or taxing the hell out of gods imported from China and Europe banning American food processing products in the name of "health" or "safety". What was it Ireland I think it was that recently ruled that Subway sandwich bread cannot be called bread because it has too much sugar in it.

 

Because happiness doesn't depend on owning property.

You don't HAVE to "provide the means to exercise a right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They exist as inalienable birthrights possessed by everyone, regardless of any provisions individuals might make.
[Of course happiness is NOT an inalienable right, only the freedom to pursue it).

Witness the government shut-downs of recent years, not to mention the present inability of congress to agree on a covid rescue package that can ameliorate the financial stress of unemployment caused by the virus.

"Let the states go bankrupt" : Mitch McConnell.

Claims? The above examples of government dysfunction are very real indeed.

The Fed MIGHT have all the tools, if Conservatives ideologues like McConnell didn't get in the way.

(I was reading about the 10th amendment today...destroying the capacity of the central government to make highly desirable policy for the good of the entire country).

Be careful...you might have to look in the mirror some time...

 

https://law.jrank.org/pages/10730/Tenth-Amendment.html

"In 1883, the Tenth Amendment regained some of its force. In that year the Supreme Court invalidated the federal CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1875 (18 Stat. 335), which criminalized RACIAL DISCRIMINATION in public accommodations, such as hotels and restaurants, because it violated state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment"

Charming. Obviously fueled by racism. The tools might exist but if the people using then are driven by self-interested ideology....

 

The right to self defense is an inalienable right. Whether the times dictate the use of "stone clubs' or "rifled fire power"...... has nothing to do with a "standing army". Has everything to do with the fact that a standing army does not precede the rights of an individual. Ask King George.

 

Your statement, above, is from ignorant or dishonesty - the US has had a standing army since 1775.
Not that it matters...

It is, however, a fundamental right of the people, specifically protected by the constitution.
Soundly explain the difference.

 

Ahhh no, it says "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
By your misinterpretation that would mean to pay the Debts of the People. It is of the United States which in the Constitution is the federal government and then read the rest of the clause and it lays out what it can be spent on and it's not the People. It is to fund and maintain the federal government and pay for it carrying out it's constitutional duties.

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

It's to pay for the Government and it's duties not to provide welfare to the People

Not providing welfare to the People does not make in an inadequate text, go live in a socialist state if that is what you want and you continue to dodge the right to keep and bear arms which the FF believed was an inalienable right, the right to defend yourself and not to have rely solely on government to do so.
So again by you reasoning why doesn the government provide everyone a gun so they can carry out their right?

Dodge

Our justice is founded in our morality and requires a set of laws. Not having those laws and only relying on someone else's morality would be a reversion to the animal kingdom.

Your belief tit is inadequate does not change the fact it is the law of the land. And your belief that it is government that owes you a certainly living standard goes against everything this country was founded and made it one of if not the best country to have ever existed. You want government to be to provider go live in Cuba or NK or Venezuela or a host of other socialist countries.

Sorry I don't equate human intelligence with lizards..........

No it gets checked and why the perp's get thrown in jail. You don't think socialist countries engage in evil?

Your loss and you don't fully understand what he was saying.

Sure and a free market and society of freedom and liberty to engage in yourself interest does not preclude that.

I really don't care about your attempts to equate us to lizards and other lower animals.

But he didn't and you don't get to change it just like you don't get to simply dismiss the constitution and our founding principle.

1. Then take responsibility and make sure you labor is worth it and get a job that will pay that, it is not the responsibility of others to fulfill what you believe is in your SELF-interest.
2. Government doesn't implement full employment. Employers do and we were there all during Trump's first three years and heading back to it.

Nope in our Bill of Rights, explicit rights so does the government have an obligation to provide me the means to exercise those rights.

Not according to the Constitution. You have a right to pursue that but again you confuse rights with an obligation of government to provide it for you. And guns and a printing press where are mine?

NO "but" about it. The law says a woman has a right to an abortion that does NOT mean government must provide it to her.

Again simple dismissals of what IS refutes nothing and the economy has worked for all who wish to take advantage of it since our founding

Where do they get the money to fund them?

Nope if we want to get rid of them we need to stop the crime which permeates them. Then the free market can operate

You have that now it's up to you to take advantage of it not for government to guarantee it and provide it to you. How has the economy not worked for you?

It's up to the person and what kind of employee they choose to be. And now you want to control what products are produced and dictate that to companies? Do you know what a fascist economy is? How about the schools properly teach the perils of Fascist/Socialist/Communist economies and what happens to freedom and liberty along with it?

It lost that industry because it became a socialist state which can't even feed itself

Like I believe the Chineses on anything. But if you are afraid of China then Biden certainly isn't your man as it appears his family may be beholding to them. The Obama/Biden administration did nothing about China and their trade and foreign expansion. Trump is the only one who has and had the balls to tell we will not stand for it.

 

Absurd. The government needs to fix this...



... not make it worse. The "fix" isn't socialism.

And you have no idea what you're talking about.

It's not a binary choice, but you wouldn't know that because you have no idea what other options are available. Economists do.

I'm not a monetarist. Nice try.

 

The right to individual self-defense should not be conflated with "the security of a free state" (or nation) requiring a "well regulated militia" (or standing military) to defend against EXTERNAL enemies.

[And actually, since 1946, we can see that "the security of a free state" from external attack is best served by criminalizing war .....via a UNSC without veto.... (machinery was created in 1946, but not fully realised...)].

But the 'security' of individuals, who have a right to self-defense, who need to defend themselves from their criminal neighbours?

It might be smart to limit availability of lethal weapons, or reduce the 'lethality' of weapons, to the general public, while dealing with the factors that lead to homicides.

So while the right to self-defense is an implied inalienable right, consistent with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a principle of least harm needs to be invoked to best satisfy ALL those inalienable rights.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Army

"When the American Revolutionary War began in April 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army. Previously, each colony had relied upon the militia, made up of part-time civilian-soldiers. The initial orders from Congress authorized ten companies of riflemen. The first full regiment of Regular Army infantry, the 3rd Infantry Regiment, was not formed until June 1784.[1] After the war, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded because of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal"

For your consideration, taken from post #220 above.

The right to individual self-defense should not be conflated with "the security of a free state" (or nation) requiring a "well regulated militia" (or standing military) to defend against EXTERNAL enemies.

As regard to the 'security' of individuals, who have an implied inalienable right to self-defense (consistent with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) who need to defend themselves from their criminal neighbours......

It might be smart to limit availability of lethal weapons, or reduce the 'lethality' of weapons, to the general public, while dealing with the factors that lead to criminal homicides.

So while the right to self-defense is an implied inalienable right, consistent with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a principle of least harm needs to be invoked to best satisfy ALL those inalienable rights.

Certainly the obsolescence and anachronism of the 2nd Amendment needs to be recognized ....for the sake of a "well-ordered" community...

 

But a fix that depends on higher taxes, even if restricted to those earning above $400K, won't be implemented by Congress...and even if it could be implemented by Congress, you would still not to be able to eradicate the inner city ghettos which must certainly be a goal of any worthwhile policy.

Unlike you, I know governments CAN write off ALL covid-19 debt, and enable all workers unemployed by the pandemic to live comfortably in their homes until the pandemic passes. No need for the riots that are beginning to break out all around the globe, as peoples' private finances are beginning to fail.

Great... then you are not a TINA orthodox ideologue....

Heaven save us from these "economists", while civil order begins to break down around the globe as the 2nd wave tightens its grip...and Powell doesn't have the rectitude to deal with the economic issues stemming from the pandemic, by fronting up to congress and guaranteeing all necessary payments until the pandemic passes...with NO implications for future (post pandemic) spending policy choices.

Well then, explain why governments are not directly addressing the economic insecurity and hardship of unemployed workers - predominantly the most disadvantaged....

 

The right to self defense does not only apply to "criminal neighbors". It is also most definitely a disincentive for a government that threatens individual liberty.
Think I can understand how you might have a problem with that. King George certainly did.

 

I already granted the validity of that interpretation, did you miss it?

Here it is again:

"2. Granting your assertion that the phrase refers to the government of the US (in the US Constitution cited above), it surely remains a desirable goal of government to manage an economy that works for all, by providing for the general welfare as far as possible."

(supplying my own meaning to the words "the general welfare"....get it?)

Note: only to establish the post office and post roads?

No other interstate infrastructure? .....This constitution might be inadequate for a modern federation.... (you can see those guys desperately trying to avoid an "oppressive" national government, regardless of the costs to efficiency).

1. "Welfare" in your sentence above does not have the same meaning, either in the phrase "provide for the general welfare", or as in "instituting an economy that works for all" (in which "welfare" for the able- working age citizen is not required, by definition, since an economy that works for all guarantees (at a minimum) above poverty wages.

You don't need a gun to defend yourself. Of course if that's the national culture, then the nation will bear the consequences of that culture.

Property rights are not inalienable rights...proved by the fact that the constitution has various amendments relating to property. You can't amend inalienable rights.

What do you mean by "Our justice"? Justice is a UNIVERSAL principle recognized SOLELY by cortex-possessing humans, in contradistinction with the rest of the animal kingdom.

Merely your expression of the TINA fallacy. An economy that works for all IS achievable in the context of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

The Reptilian or Primal Brain
"In MacLean's triune brain model, the basal ganglia are referred to as the reptilian or primal brain, as this structure is in control of our innate and automatic self-preserving behavior patterns, which ensure our survival and that of our species"

...after the victim/ loser in the competition is DEAD....the law of course can't change the human brain, but it can promote morality, and sanction criminality.

Pass, I'm busy enough dealing with YOUR errors.

Addressed above. Competition and self-interest in free markets ALONE are not always consistent with the Golden Rule...

...because you don't WANT to understand yourself... and the influence of the basal ganglia etc....

Marx didn't realize that competitive, selfish humans need reward and recognition for special effort. That doesn't bar me from arguing for constitutional change, eg, to institute an economy that works for all (as defined above).

Everyone's participation according to ability is "worth it"; Marx got that bit right. But the influence of your lizard brain won't let you see it....

The best Trump achieved was 3.7% (registered unemployed*) + 6.5% (underemployed) + those who have given up looking = >10%; in other words, depression conditions for those affected.

* people are considered 'employed', even if they are only able to find work for one hour per week .... talk about 'cooking the books', courtesy of neoliberal orthodoxy.

Wriggling from "inalienable" to "explicit"?

The former exist by birthright, the latter by statute.

I want the government to institute an economy that works for all (as defined) in order to guarantee inalienable rights. Guns and printing presses are not inalienable rights, they are specified rights (wrongly in the case of guns, and not relevant, in the case of printing presses)

However perhaps the economic status of a woman SHOULD be taken into account....

No...the economy has worked for all those ABLE to take advantage of it.....

Here it is again:

"If the resources and productive capacity of an economy are sufficiently abundant and properly utilized, then the sovereign currency-issuing government can fund public policy, eg, the cost of employing unemployed workers directly, and education to the highest levels consistent with students' abilities, without taxing or borrowing from the private sector (you and me)".

Think about it, paying particular attention to the underlined words.

(I'm always interested to see how MMT flies when first introduced; some people get it straight-away)

We need BOTH a private sector free market and a self-funded public sector.

I'm fine thanks. It's the >10% real unemployment figure discussed above (ie the best even Trump achieved) that has to be repaired; not to mention the long-term damage caused by very necessary lockdowns (to save lives) and the resulting increase in long-term under-employed if the pandemic persists.

Social amenity needs to be taken into account.

Yes; the cost of the diabetes and obesity epidemics raging across the globe, a result of mindless profit-seeking junk producers, will burden health systems to breaking point. You need to get your priorities right.

Yes: actually, fascism achieved a miracle turn-around in Germany after 1933 when Hitler took command; the economy was so successful Hitler became the most charismatic leader in German history..... then he made some mistakes....

[Historian Ian Kershaw has judged that even after accounting for the manipulation of the voting process, the results "reflected the fact that Hitler had the backing, much of it fervently enthusiastic, of the great majority of the German people" at the time.(1934)]

I'm fine with that, provided education also includes examining the nature, and indeed concept of an economy that works for all, as promoted by "democratic socialist" Bernie Sanders...

TINA is a fallacy.

Now you are denying the facts re the popularly elected Chavez socialist regime.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...id-not-destroy-venezuelas-economy/3323566001/

The root of the country's success and demise: oil

https://tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp-growth-annual

I'm not afraid of China. just pointing to their superior economic performance during, and likely beyond the pandemic.

And Ellen Brown is also impressed by China's capacity to demonstrate inclusive growth...

https://ellenbrown.com/2019/06/14/the-american-dream-is-alive-and-well-in-china/

 

So it's not only criminal neighbors, its also criminal governments that threaten individual liberty....a tad paranoid, don't you think? How or why is the US government going to threaten the citizens' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[Of course those who elect to live by the sword will die by it].

King George was correctly regarded by the colonialists (apart from a few loyalists) as an oppressive foreign King, which of course he was.