Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

Meanwhile, I don't suppose you could turn your mind to the means of reducing poverty, thereby reducing the likelihood of being victimised?

 

Says the diehard fan of involuntary servitude.

 

Your mischaracterisation of my stance is noted.

Meanwhile, while stacking your home with weapons - for self-defence against members of your own species (!), dare to experience the lateral thinking that is required to bring about positive change in the world - such as establishing universal above poverty level participation in the economy.

 

You refuse to accept the truth.
Your idea require the state to take from the haves and give to the have nots. Involuntary servitude.

You oppose the right to keep and bear arms because it prevents the state from having a monopoly on force.
This is,of course, exactly why we have said right..

 

Don't want to indulge a bit of lateral thinking re new economic arrangements suitable for a world with advancing AI and IT?
Your choice.

 

I'm open to discussion on any reasonable and rational ways of reducing poverty within our great many local societies.

 

There's that liberal Islam Christian indoctrination ChristsHitlers super egos cognitive dissonance where walking on water intellectually has no equal as suicidal sociopsychopathic human farming techniques make everything meaningful for communism of Christianity liberals.

 

Sorry -- I have an inherent opposition to forcing people into a condition of involuntary servitude,.
Why don't you?

 

Apparently, today is not that day.

 

Sorry -- I have an inherent opposition to forcing people into a condition of involuntary servitude,.

 

Only within "our great and many local communities?

Actually, ignoring the rest of the world for the sake of the argument (as you seem inclined to do) , and looking at the US itself:

Trump has the power to simply print the public (Government) funds needed (see below) to establish universal above poverty level participation in the economy, because the US does not need to import any of the resources it needs to house, clothe, feed, educate and transport everyone, in the context of establishing said universal above poverty level participation, while at the same time reducing or eliminating taxation, and reducing or eliminating welfare, as well as funding necessary/desirable public infrastructure (consistent with resource availability within the US).

How? Because any un- or (involuntarily) under-employed people of working age not able to gain above poverty level employment in the private sector, could be employed in publicly-funded socially useful activities that do not increase consumption of physical resources (or only result in a minimal increase in consumption - people have to eat whether they are living in poverty or not). Hence there are minimal implications for inflation in the economy.

There are many such activities, both skilled and unskilled, such as assisting the elderly/disabled to remain in their own homes for as long as possible, environmental maintenance, and even research projects at the tertiary level; and since education itself is the transfer of knowledge from teacher to student, requiring only 'labour' (in this case, time + intellectual effort on the part of the participants), the vital process of education could be funded by the state (to the highest levels commensurate with students' abilities) without recourse to taxation of the private sector.

Can you identify why the public sector cannot be self-funded in this manner?

[At present, the privilege of creating money is reserved for private banks, effected when banks write loans for credit worthy customers. That system has passed it's use-by date, because not everyone can successfully compete in a neoliberal competitive free market system (....even Trump thinks - rightly - that the US itself can't compete within the current global trade rules....)].

 

Yes, absolutely!

I haven't lived in the U.S. for decades, but as a taxpaying U.S. citizen the only politics I am eligible legally to participate in is that of the U.S.

Trump has no such power to simply print funds (money), and what you suggest would only result in more rapid inflation, likely hyper-inflation.

In 1950 a house could be bought for $8,000, and the average income was about $3,210 while the minimum wage was $1.25/hr.
Inflation averaged about 3.5% per year from 1950 to 2017, and based on that a similar house in 2017 should cost about $81,440 and the average wage should be about $32,678 but inflation does not apply to everything equally. That which has a finite existence tends to be the major component of inflation, with the overall inflation rate reduced by the much lower rise, and reduction of the great many other things we consume. House prices have risen an average of about 5.2% per year over the same period of time.

Yes, because the population is growth is greater than our employment needs.

We have money on ledgers and money you can hold in hand, the latter is produced to make our banks appear solvent.
And where I live, U.S. branded products are assessed a heavy import tax even when they are being produced locally.
As for global trade, the U.S. is becoming less and less competitive as a result of inflation. Where I live, inflation has caused the minimum wage to rise from about $4 per day to about $10 per day, while in the U.S. it had changed from about $30 per day to a now $58 per day.
Most foreign businesses pay well above the minimum wage, but much less than would have to pay in their own countries, and far less benefits too, making them much more competitive and profitable for themselves and the country they are in. So, no, I am not ignoring the rest of the world, they are reacting to what happens in the U.S. in ways which benefit them greatest.

 

10 students and 1 unemployed teacher.

The teacher (possessor of knowledge) instead of being on the dole, could be funded by:

1. A private money lender creating the funds to pay the teacher, and recorded as a debt to be repaid by the students, as is often the case at present.

2. Transfer of money from taxpayers to the teacher.

3. Rich parents directly paying the teacher for private education.

4. Creation of the money by the government, my preferred method.

You have outlined the effects of inflation that have occurred over a long period, even within the present system of money creation by private banks. Why is this inflation happening?

(Hyperinflation is a different issue and occurs when a nation loses income due to eg collapse in oil prices (Venezuela); or food production (Zimbabwe, due to confiscation of white-owned farms and loss of agricultural management know-how, following perceived historical injustice of said white ownership), and enforced payment of crippling war reparations (as with the Weimar Republic).

But there is an infinite amount of useful work to be done, not requiring increase in physical resource consumption, as noted in my previous post.

Re population: as education increases and women (especially) have more choices in their own lives, the birth rate falls, as observed in first world economies ie, if individuals have access to above poverty level employment, they will be less inclined to procreation that will negatively impact their own living standards.

?? appear solvent??

I suspect both of us need the input of experts 'higher up the food-chain' to progress this debate....but then we run into the problem of competing ideologies of said "experts"...

However if you can elaborate on "appear solvent", feel free to do so.

A final observation re the 'cost' of education and its relation to inflation:
if the world economy is regarded as a single entity, then universal education could be free (ie, funded via public money printing), because the transfer of knowledge from teacher to student does not involve any additional draw on the world's physical resources.

 

The war on poverty like democide in what cold war https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM as Trump is putting on his best two faced propaganda following Byrd's West Nazi Germany Virginia KKK churchstate, Rehnquist's supreme swastika up Uranus Reichquest court & those burning Bush's 9/11 patriot act to keep up with the Putin's & Jong Un's & others reducing poverty thru human farming techniques.

 

Well the most powerful and wealthiest democracy in the world does imprison more people than any other country:

Half of the world's prison population of about nine million is held in the US, China or Russia. Prison rates in the US are the world's highest, at 724 people per 100,000. In Russia the rate is 581. (In absolute terms, over 2 million in the US and 1.5 million in China).

Since these figures no doubt have a significant relationship to relative poverty within each country, poverty reduction is an urgent task for national, as well as the global economy.

 

Key words being relative poverty.
That which has NO value or very little value only becomes much more costly to subsidize when inflation is allowed to grow without periods of deflation.

 

The key words being "little value" and "subsidize".

Education of course is priceless, and possibly also assisting the elderly to remain in their own homes, or enabling tertiary research that otherwise remains undone. (Professor Brian Cox has noted that Americans spend more on grooming their pets than on researching nuclear fusion).

You mention the necessity of "alternating periods of deflation and inflation".

That sounds like good ol' orthodox neoliberal economic ideology... I 'm looking for some lateral thinking, based on the observation that there are sufficient resources in the world to eliminate poverty; eg, can you directly address my proposition that universal 'free' education need not cause inflation in the world economy, because the process of education 'consumes' time, not physical resources.

Eg, rather than "subsidizing" education, it could be publicly funded as required, (without negatively impacting the private sector) with money printed by a central agency.

[The private sector, motivated by self interest and profit, and directed by competition, will never employ all available labour; acceptance of this reality, in a world of advancing IT and AI, is no longer necessary, nor ethically defensible].

And the issue of banks needing to "appear solvent"? Too difficult to address? (Not a criticism, but I am interested in separating economic reality from economic ideology).

 

Yes, they are indeed "key words" along with NO value.

Merriam-Webster defines priceless as:
1 a : having a value beyond any price : invaluable.
b : costly because of rarity or quality : precious.
2 : having worth in terms of other than market value.
3 : delightfully amusing, odd, or absurd.

How many people can you find who are willing to teach others for free?

Public funding it would be subsidizing it, and all our money is currently printed by a central agency.

And that's simply a case of supply and demand.

No bank is capable of withstanding mass withdrawals in a period of recession, or even in the best of times for that matter.

 

These Nazi economics resulting in poverty where the megalomaniacal one nation under God Catholic Church Knights of Columbus genocide thru democide, as if it's all too dang lily brilliant white superceding WW II concentration camps in humanity whilst waging drug crusades against the US with illegal immigration politics; which Islam has joined in jihad certainly makes "man is GOD" Genocide Of Democide.

 

I have demonstrated an alternative method of funding teachers.

You need to explain (if you wish to illuminate or resolve this debate) why the transfer of knowledge from teacher to student will cause inflation, using this alternative method of funding, given that education is a process requiring only time consumed in the exercise of the participants' mental effort.

 

It tends to educate people in this survival of the fittest fascists game where indoctrination for climbing an Islam Christiananality pedophile mentality pyramid scheme escalates along with inflation over time from sociopsychological human farming techniques.

 

Yes, methods 1 and 3 are quite acceptable. Where did I say "the transfer of knowledge from teacher to student will cause inflation"?
Education is a time consuming process, and at a cost as you admitted that it requires funding of the teachers. If, as you seem to presume, it results in a productive member of society then that (those) persons should be required to repay the costs. I had to work to pay my way through college although I found the public library, books, friends and co-workers to be much more educational and useful.

 

Your reply to my proposition of money creation by a public authority for specific purposes (as outlined, including education) brought forth your observations re inflation, with some additional comments about the necessity of private banks to appear solvent.

A simple model might assist to progress this debate.

A community of 100 people, including one manufacturer, one teacher and one banker. The amount of money in the community enables a functioning economy.

Now consider that the population doubles to 200 people. How does the quantity of money double?

In the present neoliberal competitive free market system, the banker will write more loans ie create the funds required for the increase in private sector activity (identified as the manufacturer, in the model) and assume this money will work its way through the community ('trickle down')

But my contention is there is no law of economics which precludes the creation of a public bank that can create funds for (non-resource consuming) socially desirable public sector activity, to operate along side the private bank that writes loans (ie creates money) for competitive profit-based, resource-consuming private sector activity.

Your inference is that education can only be 'valued' by the amount of resource-consuming activity (ie 'wealth' creation activity) it generates - and therefore education must be regarded a 'cost'; but I have shown that, given availability of labour excess to private sector requirements, the consumption of time (in the education process) need not be regarded as a 'cost'.

Education of course has the potential to reduce ideological conflicts of all kinds, and in that sense it is "priceless" (infinitely valuable) regardless of how much stuff/consumption it generates…..eg, (to relate this debate to the OP!) there is only one reality, or One God, which all homo sapiens must confront; most conflict in the world today is based on ignorance, eg, of history, the rise and fall of civilisations, differentiation of religious traditions and claims of absolute truth for any particular faith, as well as increasingly unnecessary competition for vital resources... today most nations are competing for markets to sell their stuff, rather than competing for vital resources....

"Civilisation is a race between education and catastrophe". HG Wells

 

As

 

You seem to be simply promoting the productive members of societies subsidizing the existence of the non-productive members of society, for no rational reason at all.
What is the value of education that is not or can not be put to gainful use?

A simple question, you buy a house with a bank loan and after 20 years it is paid off having cost you a total of $187,306 including interest, taxes and insurance. Would you be willing to sell that house for $100,000?