Grow We Must Economics

Yes, I can. I am using the metric, not the ideology. We must distinguish.

And, no solution means, I win, regardless.

 

Don't forget to call me evil!

There's no free market, it is neither achievable or desirable. Free market economics merely pushes a right wing ideology.

 

What objection can there be to increasing the minimum wage to fifteen an hour?

In my opinion. the socialism of a public sector can help out capitalists by equalizing their capital burden, in a more social manner.

 

Your NRU would certainly object

A mixed economy is not a sufficient criteria for socialism

 

And, that NRU would be noted, and denied; since unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, can be commanded to command economize that aspect of our economy, by socialism merely using Capitalism, for its minimum wage worth (minus one dollar) in modern capital times.

 

I deny it as I think the whole macro approach is based on a reaction to corrupted Keynesianism. You don't deny it. You go on and on and on about it.

You're not making any sense here. Probably a good tactic!

 

lol. i am not the one with nothing but diversion. You and the Rest of the right wing, don't seem to have any rebuttals.

That means, I am right, even tho I am on the left.

 

Then why do you refer to rightwing concepts? Why do you embed them in your argument and use them to pretend knowledge?

 

lol. simply Because you have Nothing but fallacy instead of Any valid rebuttal. You won't get away with that if this should have to be litigated, so knowing that now; why should I take you seriously?

Unemployment compensation already exists in our Republic.

Recourse to an basic income means greater stability for the private sector, and the potential to create, more market based products, in the financial sector.

 

I'm not the one thinking the NRU can be embedded in left wing argument.

Says nothing.

Repetition of your usual "means nothing, hope it looks intelligent" approach

 

In other words, You believe recourse to unemployment compensation at, for example, fourteen dollars an hour would be meaningless, with a regime of fifteen dollars an hour for actually having a work ethic. Is that what you are trying to claim, or is it something else, entirely?

 

Another random comment. You started with nonsensical remark, so what's your point?

 

something else entirely, is merely a non sequitur. you need to actually address the argument.

 

You need to do the obvious: derive comment that makes sense. You haven't so far. Your failure has made you go even more surreal. Its not bull**** art with any merit mind you.

 

Rationalizing systematic, institutionalized injustice is evil.

It's not achievable, but is desirable in sectors where market failure conditions do not obtain.

No, 'free market economics' -- which actually means prioritizing privilege over freedom -- does.

 

all you have is worthless dogma that relies on fallacies of false causes. why no actual rebuttal. not enough grey matter?

 

God bless you! I knew the rant hadn't gotten away...

First, market failure is ever present (e.g. imperfect information). Second, even if it wasn't we'd be in an undesirable world. We'd have something akin to perfect competition which would guarantee stagnancy through low investment.

Free market economics peddles myth. You have much in common

 

All foreign nationals in the US are tourists, if they are not in the process of applying for citizenship.

A market friendly visa, can make that happen and raise federal revenue, to pay for federal programs.

 

You use right wing dogma and then get uppity because I recognise your error? I have a lesson for you. Construct your argument around coherent economics. Stop throwing in terms pretending sense, it just makes you look clueless.

 

I use that dogma for ease and convenience, and explain my usage in full detail.

Still confused, just ask. I offer no, excuses, only results.

 

You used it to pretend knowledge. You didn't realise it destroyed your argument. Bit obvious really.

You randomly embed economic terms to try and sound clever. I look forward to your next failure!

 

You have to make sure your dogma is accurate, or resorts to the fewest fallacies, first.

Care to explain, why your right wing dogma concerning the dogma of the NRU is more important or relevant than the statistics of the NRU.

 

You're making no sense, as usual. You're the one referring to the NRU. I reject it. The vertical Phillips Curve is nothing but the result of an inane debate between monetarist and those who didn't understand Keynes

 

You can't "lie", you have to resort to statistics, for that.

 

I found a relevant point for your dogma, Eureka!

The statistics for labor force participation would be more accurate if people could simply apply for unemployment compensation simply for being, naturally unemployed in our natural (rights), at-will employment States.

That could simplify public policy.