Balance of trade, globalization, and unemployment

No. We must distinguish; simply to avoid these silly semantics.

 

Why complain about taxes for social services, right wingers? Moral forms of indignation, requires morals.

 

There is nothing to distuingish.
Silly semantics changes nothing.




I may not share the same morals as you.
For example: I don't consider receiving money I haven't earned moral.
But my morals are my own. They don't apply to you.
You have your own morals.

 

Yes, it does. solving simple poverty means abolishing homelessness and pan handling.

 

good luck with that.

The tramps in my town earn way more than I do. And i work 50 hours a week.

 

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously. telling stories, is what they are best at.

 

You do, given your argument is based on the NRU

 

I would like to offer You a position as Sergeant Major General of the Office for Official Dogma; should I have one available.

 

Given you're the one using right wing dogma and I'm the one referring to practical implementation, you do struggle!

 

why does the right wing object to actually solving our simple problems, in our Republic?

is all political talk and no political action, the preferred modus operandi of the right wing?

 

Your position isn't left or right. It's simply wrong.

 

i would like to believe you, but i am the one resorting to the fewest fallacies, on this one.

 

You've called practical constraints 'dogma'. You've called right wing dogma 'statistics'. You haven't got anything right.

 

apples and oranges?

The concept of employment at will, means the capital and anarchic "efficiency" of self-selection. Not all potential participants in the market for labor, are actually fully prepared to engage in that market. Unemployment compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment (for the Capital bottom line), solves for that Capital inefficiency; by the participants themselves, on an at-will basis.

 

In order to tell stories, you actually have to have some to tell.
Knowing nothing about the subjects you discuss gets your opinion overlooked.

 

Back to abusing right wing concepts , nothing more. The NRU is spawned by vertical Phillips Curve kack. It suggests stimulus has no significant value and that any labour market inflexibility should be eliminated (including generous benefits, any non- means testing and minimum wages).

That you manage to destroy your own argument by referring to right wing dogma is impressive!

 

lol. nothing but fallacy is all the right wing has. why claim learning how to fish is important, when y'all Only seem to catch, red herrings.

 

work or die? we have a First World economy, not a third world economy.

 

Respond to my post. I'm not interested in random cliche effort

 

You are merely special pleading for dogmatic purposes. I can do that too. Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, can solve simple poverty when due merely to a lack of income, that would otherwise be obtained from employment. A natural rate of unemployment exists for the Capitalist's bottom line, not Labor's.

 

You're the one that uses dogma (you just don't understand where that dogma comes from)

 

lol. i try to work with self-evident economic truths, whenever possible; unlike the right wing. The proof is, i try to resort to the fewest fallacies.

 

Using right wing dogma and typing 'solving simple poverty' a lot, is not working in 'self-evident economic truths'

 

Why deflect when you know what you are talking about?

We all get it. You hate right wingers. Fascinating.
That is the root of your economic theories? Right wingers are wankers?
Seems weak.

Thanks for making the effort to reply to me.
I think I'll leave it there.

 

did you know; non-sequiturs are usually considered fallacies?