Balance of trade, globalization, and unemployment

Not true. Full employment does not deliver zero poverty. You've made that up. Economic history shows otherwise; the increased importance of working poverty proves otherwise.

 

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis means capitalism's natural rate of unemployment can enable more change to become more efficient in the marketplace, more easily.

 

Why should Labor have to care, if they are not involved in management?

 

The NRU is a right wing concept, referring to some nonsense about a vertical Phillips Curve (which eliminates any influence of fiscal policy). Given your comment is purely about the marginal issue of automatic stabilisers, you're struggling big time!

 

yes Friedman was a capitalist, and he knew that tax and spend obviously would not change unemployment or real wages in long run.

 

Golly gosh, don't you come across as relatively liberal minded!

Are telling me that Friedman out-trumps the 'rational expectation' new classical economists?

 

The law is still, employment at will in our At-Will Employment States. We have a federal doctrine, that supports that legal position.

 

Just who is "Labor"? Look in a mirror. You spend your Earnings which makes for Consumption. And in turn such Demand both sustains and creates jobs.

Duhhhhhhhh ...

 

THE BMI

I take exception with your use of the word "capitalism". It is not a philosophy.

Capitalism is a mechanism. That is, the use of money as a means of exchange, and it came about a long, long time ago to replace "barter".

My complaint:
*The Left knee-jerks blame on a mechanism central to any-economy-on-earth. (Unless of course, we'd prefer to return to barter.) We cannot do away with "capitalism", but we can indeed change its present contextual economic unfairness.
*Unacceptable Income Disparity (that actually creates poverty) is the predominant culprit in any economy that should have a refined system of Taxation. Not one that allows this to happen:

*Which is why northern Europe has come up with a damn good-idea that, I am sure, will happen in some distant future in the US. It is a government guaranteed Basic Minimum Income that allows families to survive decently - and, above all, send their kids to school to get a free post-secondary education they will need to live well.

I am convinced that the BMI will have two key effects upon existence in America:
*It will reduce crime since it does away with the factor that most promotes criminal activity at the lower end of the income-spectrum.
*It will allow Income to be spent on Education that will enhance the abilities of our youth to find decent jobs at a decent pay-scale - if and only if the cost of furnishing said education is assumed by the national government. (Instead of wasting almost 50% of the Discretionary Budget on the DoD. See here, if necessary.)
*Inevitably, the percentage of Americans finding themselves perpetually living below the Poverty Threshold (around $24K for a family of four) will diminish from 14% to 5%. (That is, from 46 million men, women and children today down to 17 million.)

 

Again, no attempt to reply to the quote. The NRU was developed by a false debate between monetarists and bastardised Keynesians. There is zero connection with solving poverty. Indeed, application of monetarist doctrine intensified poverty

 

Management gets paid the management bucks to make a profit.

 

Disengenousness from the right wing? Right wingers even claim, capitalism includes Government.

in any case, the left wing already has a solution; it is termed and styled, equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will.

 

NRU happens simply for the capital, bottom line, through no fault of Labor.

Employment is at-will.

Unemployment compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment for the Bottom capital Line, can solve simple poverty for Labor.

 

Again, you make zero sense. The NRU is an ideological approach based on the vertical Phillips curve. It's used, for example, to suggest unemployment benefit should be less generous as a means to boost employment levels. Of course that is also linked to increase working poverty, making a mockery of your original effort

 

Only for story telling statisticians. Labor having recourse to an income on an at-will basis, solves simple poverty and give Labor a capital excuse to blame Capitalists.

Don't want us on unemployment, raise wages and hire more people.

 

Moaning about statisticians won't help you. You brought the NRU. I didn't. You just didn't recognise it's ideological bent, nor how it argues for reduced effectiveness of unemployment benefit.

You could have gone for something like the NAIRU, but you'd still just be misapplying Philli0s Curve comment.

 

Statistics are useful for metrics purposes. You are the one quibbling and misapplying terms. I am referring to a form of full employment of resources.

 

You do make me laugh! Are you seriously going to deny that the NRU was spawned by supply siders who argue for reduced unemployment benefit? Good luck!

You continue to throw out Econ 101 terms without realising that they are inconsistent with your argument.

 

I claim NRU is merely favoritism for Capitalists over Labor. Unemployment compensation can compensate for that capital inefficiency.

What market would be worse off, with more market participants having recourse to capital?

 

Well, if it is important to have a larger middle class than a smaller one, and less people in poverty, instead of more, then economic globalism is not the way to go. We see what providing our consumption using american workers created in america, and we have seen what globalism has done. Easy to choose which economic model optimizes standards of living, a middle class, reduces poverty, and which one does not. Of course, America and her People must have some importance to arrive at this conclusion and clearly this is no longer the case. To hell with the People, just fatten up profits for the top dogs, and we have seen that with globalism, for it has created an even greater disparity in income and wealth than seen during the gilded age.

 

Economic model? Globalisation isn't linked to any economic model. For example, countries happily combine it with social democracy (ensuring that the gains from trade and shared out among the population)

 

100% wrong of course. What you've really seen is what liberal unions, taxes, regulations, and illegal immigrants have done to globalization. Liberalism is a cancer. Everything they touch. They tried to help blacks most of all for example but instead turned every inner city in America into a Chi-Raq!

 

What do you think 'they' should have done to blacks?

 

thank God our big companies have remained very very competitive across the world and made lots of money. This is what we prayed for. People at top are making fortunes but this has nothing to do with people in middle make. You have been tricked by Marxists into believing somebody fattened up profits for the top dogs when it happened because our huge companies thankfully competed successfully in the new globalized world. Now do you understand?

 

not attacked their families schools religion and culture with Marxist welfare programs.