Balance of trade, globalization, and unemployment

lol. all of that, "work ethic from the Age of Iron", and "learning how to fish" propaganda and rhetoric, merely to catch red herrings?

You cannot explain how Any merchant in Commerce would be worse off. if Labor is either, employed or unemployed and being compensated for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.

 

Recourse to a basic income on an at-will basis must create some form of demand, and create some need for new products to meet that new demand. Some consideration must also be given to the increased market stability (a form of efficiency for Commerce).

What merchant in financial markets would be worse off, if Labor has recourse to a basic income, especially when unemployed on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage should encourage more potential labor market participants, to participate in the market labor and create additional demand.

Central banks actually have "more tools to work with" when there is some inflationary pressure.

Can you come up with an actual, hypothetical scenario where Labor having recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, would be a worse off situation for Anyone?

 

do you want a list of books about Chinese capitalism again and again and again? Why must you go over the same ground again and again and again without ever moving the debate forward. Do you want to be in exactly the same place for the rest of your entire life??

 

Supply equals demand so there is no unemployment under capitalism which is why we have 96% employment despite liberal programs that discourage people from working. 1+1 = 2

 

If so why are you so afraid to tell us what does eliminate poverty? What do you learn from your fear

 

I cannot explain it as your position is based on clear drivel. The NRU is spawned by vertical Phillips Curve analysis. Its a call to arms for supply side economics. You then make ridiculous statements over 'compensated'. The Basic Income Guarantee does not eliminate poverty. Full employment does not eliminate poverty. You twin empirical and theoretical error

 

Capitalism in the era of robotics and AI will never need all workers. You are believing in a myth.

 

there is no unemployment, only underpayment. capital conspiracy or capital coincidence?

 

so, how would any merchant in Commerce not be able to extend favorable credit terms to Any customer, knowing that customer has recourse to a basic income, simply to compensate, for the poverty inducing effect, of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?

Why would any market not function more effectively with full employment of capital resources in any given market, and that form of liquidity?

 

Repetition of dross!

That full employment is a key objective is obvious. That it doesn't eliminate poverty is also obvious.

 

100% wrong of course, farm tractor hammer screw electricity etc replaced billions of workers and yet we have 96% employment. Do you understand?

 

gibberish unless you define poverty. communication requires agreed upon definitions. Do you grasp this concept.

 

what??? more utterly nonsensical English from Shakespeare!! As long as you are talking only to yourself in your own English you will never learn a thing and have no effect on anyone. Think about it.

 

Defining poverty is easy. There are three basic methodologies: absolute, relative and subjective. Subjective forms mind you generate a modern absolute measure that generates strikingly similar to outcomes to relative.

 

who's talking about methodologies??. Subject was your definition in context of your silly statement. Do you understand now?

 

You asked to define poverty. I appreciate that actually referring to the methodologies that define poverty is going to be beyond you.

 

yes to define it and continue on with your argument. Do you understand??

 

You do struggle. The argument was fromngge ighet fellow. He has made the bogus claim that the twinning of full employment and a basic income guarantee will solve poverty. We know that isn't true. Doesn't matter which poverty methodology we adopt.

 

So then, please enlighten us on what new sector or sectors will take in humans and give them jobs, that cannot be done by AI or robots. How long do you need? 50 years to come up with the answer?

We knew what would replace farmers, and hired workers. So, using that example is BS and it is self evident. Unless you believe in magic. Magic would give you new sectors that only humans could do and which would need a hundreds of millions of people. For their work.

BTW, NO ONE else can answer the question I asked you, so show us your genius. Genius.

 

dear, the future is unknown. Nobody knew when they invented the farm tractor to displace billion of people that people would then be making airplanes iphones and TV's. Do you understand?

 

No, I don't understand. The industrial revolution moved farmers into production. It was already here. So we knew where workers were going. This is not the case today, in fact, there isn't even an inkling of an idea what can only be done by humans, instead of a cheaper cost with AI and robots.

But don't feel too bad about not knowing, for..no..one..does. And the thing is, given the nature of this worker displacement, more than likely unlike in the past, there will be nothing to replace the jobs lost. We replaced farm work with industrial work. Which needed human labor. But if robots and AI had been invented at the same time, those farmers would have had no place to run to. Now, get it? The nature of this revolution is NOT the same as what came before it. And that is what you are missing. Which is why others, deeper thinkers than you and I are also clueless. Not if you want capitalism to remain as an economic model. And therein is the rub.

 

In other words, simple poverty could easily have been solved Yesterday, but for right wing, hate on the poor.

 

don't have Faith in Capitalism only Talk, right winger?

 

You haven't referred to any poverty solution. A BIG won't eliminate it. Full employment won't eliminate it.

 

Full employment of capital resources must eliminate it or it is not, full employment.

Employed Labor should have an income, ceteris paribus.

Unemployment Labor receiving compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment, should have an income, ceteris paribus.

What could be simpler, to solve simple forms of poverty that Can be solved, merely through the use of Capital.