The NRU isn't statistics. It is a right wing concept that you on and on and on about, without realising it destroys your argument.
that doesn't answer this question: Care to explain, why your right wing dogma concerning the dogma of the NRU is more important or relevant than the actual and relevant statistics of the NRU.
Eureka! I found another work around for your dogma regarding the dogma instead of the numbers. Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed will give us more accurate labor force participation rates.
You're asking a nonsensical question. I don't have right wing dogma. You do. You embedded right wing concepts without knowing it. Bit of an 'oops' moment!
The only thing missing is the actual numerical statistics. How are you going to manufacture your special pleading, without the numbers?
How about this: it is an analogy from the Astronomy sector, We simply need to find a more cost effective "taxation orbit". A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will raise more tax money "through the law of large numbers for propulsion."
The statistic is based on the dogma. Bit obvious really! There is no natural rate of unemployment. Its a myth spawned by Phillips Curve guff
something, is better than nothing. should i start to establish my dogmatic definitions in the Urban dictionary, to start?
i can ignore the dogma, and simply resort to the statistics. My, "special dispensation" is, those metrics are utilized by the general government and have the full faith and credit of public Acts, by default.
You seem to think you can make stuff up. The statistics are, by definition, the outcome of applying right wing dogma.
Failure conditions are pervasive but not always significant. In commodity markets, for example, information is pretty complete. No, it would not, because the alternative to productive investment would not be rents from unproductive ownership of privileges but no return at all. Remember, business actually makes a lot of productive investments even now, when the competition from profitable rent collection privileges is so overwhelming. Without that competition, where else would people with too much money put it? That free markets work is not myth. The myths are all in what privilege mongers falsely call "free markets."
In my case, full employment of resources in any given market, means one hundred percent. Any capital, "natural" rate of unemployment is simply, "capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency". Government can solve all problems. The Romans already proved it. Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, solves Labor's problem with lousy capitalists who are lousy at captialism.
A weird choice! Take precious metals. We had the 2014 price manipulation blow-up! Moreover, its linked to land grabs as corporations feed civil wars in order to exploit resources. This is ramble and missed the point. Market power is required for sufficient investment and therefore innovation. Think Schumpeter! And that market power is necessarily also linked to market failure (and the need to regulate markets). Capitalism has never had free markets. It was built on the very foundations of manipulation through, for example, protectionism to engineer the creation of infant industries. You're peddling myths that are no different to the pressue groups feeding 'right wing libertarianism'
Markets for precious metals like gold are affected by investor sentiment, speculation, and consequently sometimes illegal activities as well as market fundamentals. No, it identified your error. Nope. Wrong. All that's required is removal of the non-productive rival investment options. Remove patent monopolies and firms have to innovate because they can't rest on their laurels. Think facts. Schumpeter was thinking inside the capitalist box. But we already know market power is not needed. All that is needed is removal of the non-productive options, and productive investment becomes the only outlet for excess purchasing power. Of course not: capitalism by definition requires private ownership of land, which inherently forces everyone to subsidize landowners. Forced subsidies can't be part of a free market. That's the least of it. Garbage.
First mover advantage. If firms don't innovate, they won't be able to compete. Fools seem to forget that firms have technical problems they want to solve, and will pay engineers to solve them whether or not they get a patent. Patents just enable them to stop others from solving the same problem the same way. Where's the profit motive to innovate in the fashion design industry, where firms don't get patents or copyrights for most types of designs? Do you think there is a lack of innovation in the fashion business? Do you think the most skilled and prolific fashion innovators and designers are inadequately rewarded in that industry?
And very much affected by market failure. You didn't just choose a bad example, you referred to an issue known for coercive abuse of land (such that indigenous populations are made worse off). A particularly ignorant choice, given your dependency on land rant. More cluelessness. Given the huge fixed costs involved, we're already highly reliant on government interventionism. Without the profit associated with market power, the reliance will be further intensified. Given Schumpeter is ultimately referring to the end of capitalism, this is a naive statement and a half! Bobbins! You can have nationalisation of land and still have capitalism. Of course that nationalised outcome is possible. You prefer instead to deal with pie in the sky stuff, pretending that free markets are just a matter of wand waving.
No, mainly by political (i.e., non-market) interventions. Indigenous populations can also be made worse off without coercive abuse of land, which is a separate issue from the efficiency of commodity markets. No, it was a pretty good choice, because it demonstrates how free markets reduce costs. Real prices for commodities including almost all metals have fallen quite reliably for centuries. Yep: yours. Nope. Flat wrong. It's not the fixed costs that require intervention, it's the government interventions in the form pf privileges that make productive investment uncompetitive. When government subsidizes landowning so heavily that landowners make 7% without contribution, effort or risk, a productive investment that requires effort and risk to earn 5% can't be justified. But take away the option of making 7% without effort, contribution or risk by owning land, and the 5% return for productive investment becomes not only viable but preferable. Refuted above, as I explained in previous posts. You are simply ignoring the salient fact: productive investments that can't compete with the returns to privilege COULD compete with no return at all if the privilege option were removed. No, yours is the shallow, naive and jejune claim. Schumpeter is talking about how capitalism ends by staying capitalist. He did not consider how a radically different alternative could work. Fact. No, you cannot, by definition. That is why China is not capitalist. Capitalism by definition requires private ownership of the means of production: land and capital. If either of them is not privately owned, it's not capitalism. Singapore now holds so much land in public ownership that it is questionable whether it is still capitalist. Liberty is not easy, but it is possible.
Basic error! Influence and agency costs are crucial components in understanding asymmetric information market failure. For someone who crows 'you is evi'l so regularly, it's interesting how frequently you ignore democide. You did that, for example, with Britain's historical use of concentration camps. You've now lauded a market which arguably is one of the most important factor behind civil war. Is this your pie in the sky free market in operation? This market was highly corrupted and there has been concerted interventionism to eliminate fraudulent behaviour. Despite that, the market continues to be a primary reason for why trade actually harms wellbeing and why developing countries effectively are playing Russian Roulette with civil war. We're getting a good picture of what your pie in the sky free markets really mean! Compare Europe and the US's R&D rates. The difference reflects interventionism in the defence sector. Next smash a smart phone with a hammer. Count out how many of the components originally come from innovation through public sector funding. That R&D are fixed costs is obvious. That competitive industries, with no profit to reinvest, cannot offer R&D solutions is also obvious. Why do you struggle with the obvious? All we're seeing is the effects of your land obsession. It means you have no understanding of the economics required to understand the innovation process: theory of the firm, managerial economics, resource-based economics, Schumpeterian creative destruction etc etc etc You actually wrote this? Wow! Schumpeter is demonstrating the consequences of competition. The promuse of monopoly power becomes a positive force. Its just those forces also ensure an evolution to socialism. State capitalist. Nothing new in that. Nonsense. Take Hitler and his Germania dream. He demonstrates state control over all land. At the same time he maintained private ownership if capital and used that to further increase labour exploitation. Obsessively referring to land, and ignoring the varied nature of class conflict, has ensured an irrelevant position. Not with pie in the sky free markets, as you've neatly illustrated!
