it's not just about wages, it's about hours & job security too

Discussion in 'Labor & Employment' started by kazenatsu, Feb 24, 2018.

  1. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you for ceding the point and the argument with your capital, nothing but fallacy, instead of a more social; sublime Truth (value), through argumentation.
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,536
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I merely refer to your continued insistence in throwing in economic terms without bothering with meaning. There's no capitalism NRU. There is simply a supply side economics term which kicks your argument properly in the nethers
     
  3. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    supply side is a right wing term, some on the left are "flanking", for political purposes. supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost; not, trickle down.
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,536
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You again say nothing. Supply side means naff all on its own. Supply side economics does. You've used supply side economics and, only because of your own error, failed to appreciate you were destroying your own argument.
     
  5. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    in other words, you have nothing useful to contribute. i got it.

    What do you recommend for a nomenclature for a "weight and measure" that provides metrics regarding employment status?
     
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,536
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You come out with random comments that abuse simple economic terms, but I'm the one not contributing? You need to learn your error. Perhaps then you can form a coherent argument.
     
  7. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It is Capitalism's, "Natural rate of unemployment". Socialism only recognizes natural, capital market failures that need to be corrected for with command economics.
     
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,536
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it isn't. It is a right wing ideology's NRU. You bought in it by mistake. Bit obvious really!
     
  9. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    the right wing alleges to subscribe to Capitalism; but, seem to have nothing but socialism on a national basis; what say you?
     
  10. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    4,410
    Likes Received:
    3,516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it's not 'that' (vague at best) then what are you referring to? Income received by individuals is normally taxable, so your terminology of 'transfers' is unclear.

    People are more critical of assistance received by the poor, as it is 'other people's money' they are receiving. Money that someone else has worked for, being given to someone who has not worked for it.
     
  11. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks for reminding me of some previous arguments; you really do deserve some of the credit.

    I don't mind compromise, not Only for fun and practice, but also for political convenience and political ease.

    I agree to term and style my usage, Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, to distinguish; and pioneer that concept for you.
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,536
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I say you're replying with random drivel again. You've been caught out using economic terms inappropriately. Rather than apologise for your error, you've fired up the random sentence creator as a means to pretend knowledge. That you think that works is a marvel in itself!
     
  13. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Just right wing propaganda. It is not Your money if we have any problems in our Republic.

    The Power to Tax is delegated to Congress to solve any problems in our Republic.

    Any more problems, right wingers?
     
  14. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    how to convert this to a math formula regarding capitalism's, not socialism's, natural rate of inefficiency?
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,536
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another meaningless question! Things aren't difficult: if you want to derive a supply side economics argument, use supply side economics concepts; if you don't want to do that, don't.

    You've always thrown in economic terms without thought. Why haven't you learnt any economics by now?
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2018
  16. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    why do you care to quibble? keeping statistics, or something?
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,536
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hate to see economics used badly. Teach yourself some economics, reduce the disutility that I suffer!
     
  18. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Compensation for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency also solves for income security under our form of Capitalism, if not job security.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,536
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no such thing as 'natural rate of inefficiency'. Why do you think changing unemployment to inefficiency suddenly ensures validity?
     
  20. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    4,410
    Likes Received:
    3,516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Left wing propaganda labels it as right wing propaganda, but that does not mean it is propaganda. But that's a nice two-step away from explaining what you actually meant.

    So you believe that people should be taxed additionally to provide funds to be given to those in poverty, so we don't have a poverty issue anymore? Am I understanding you correctly?
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    because, it is part of the federal doctrine, for doctrinal purposes, whenever we should have to quibble about it. and, socialism can consider it a natural rate of inefficiency, and abolish it for the general welfare.
     
  22. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I am stating the power to provide for the general welfare is general, not major or common. Right wing propaganda, claims otherwise.

    There is no provision for excuses in the federal doctrine; only results. Capitalists can't blame Labor for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment, forever. It really is, Institutional, not Individual.
     
  23. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    4,410
    Likes Received:
    3,516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you consider the taxation of other citizens to support those who will not provide for themselves (those deemed to be in the realm of 'poverty') as providing for the 'general welfare'? Do you actually understand what you are posting?
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    38,536
    Likes Received:
    1,698
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, there's no such thing as 'natural rate of inefficiency'. Its bobbins
     
  25. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    454
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You could put it that way; some on the left believe we should cut our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to redistribute that national income.
     

Share This Page