Canada Joins Lunar Gateway

On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:05:26 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Full employment is not a good metric for a healthy economy. And our
economy right now is not robust at all, unless you're in the upper
income and wealth brackets.

In order for the economy _to_ be robust for those in the lower income and wealth
brackets, wouldn't full employment be what you need? So I'm afraid I'm not quite following you here.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote in
:

On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:05:26 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

Full employment is not a good metric for a healthy economy. And
our economy right now is not robust at all, unless you're in
the upper income and wealth brackets.

In order for the economy _to_ be robust for those in the lower
income and wealth brackets, wouldn't full employment be what you
need? So I'm afraid I'm not quite following you here.

That would be because, stupid as you are, you're light years smarter
than Chris (who, being named Chris, is, by definition, an idiot).

Full employment isn't the *only* metric for a healthy economy, but
it's a required one.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 11:55:14 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:05:26 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Full employment is not a good metric for a healthy economy. And our
economy right now is not robust at all, unless you're in the upper
income and wealth brackets.

In order for the economy _to_ be robust for those in the lower income and wealth
brackets, wouldn't full employment be what you need? So I'm afraid I'm not quite following you here.

Full (or near full) employment is necessary for the sort of economic
system we have. But full employment does not mean a healthy economy.
Slave states have full employment. And indeed, what we have borders on
that, with a large sector of our economy not being paid a wage
commensurate with their input to the economic system or a wage high
enough to live on properly.

What is required is full employment with a reasonable income. We lack
that.

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 7:28:08 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Full (or near full) employment is necessary for the sort of economic
system we have. But full employment does not mean a healthy economy.
Slave states have full employment. And indeed, what we have borders on
that, with a large sector of our economy not being paid a wage
commensurate with their input to the economic system or a wage high
enough to live on properly.

What is required is full employment with a reasonable income. We lack
that.

(1) We will NEVER have full employment because there are those satisfied
with what they can get without working.

(2) "Reasonable income" is highly subjective. Some consider having
a mansion is "reasonable" while others are satisfied with a cracker-
box house. Some enjoy partying, others are hermits, and others want
to support worthy causes (and that's also highly subjective).

(3) In a society where goods are limited, there is ALWAYS a system
for deciding who gets what. In our society, it's gelt. Under
communism, kings and dictatorships it's the rulers. Under European
socialism it's ultimately the people, but de Tocqueville's
criticism of democracy still applies in the long-run because the
majority of voters will want more than is available. Yes, people
are greedy, and the best system to handle that is capitalism.

The BIG problem with the US economy is that it's debt-driven and
people are financially stupid. People get deep in debt and become
slaves, but ANYONE who cannot provide for their own necessities
is a slave to those who DO provide them to him. This is true for
governments, too.

The education systems has aided and abetted this stupidity. In the
US the best way for most people to get ahead is to have their own
business, but how to do this and how to be financially prudent
isn't taught in the public school systems. Furthermore, local,
state and federal governments inhibit would-be business owners with
excessive red tape (sure, in the interests of public safety, etc)
but schools could do more about helping people navigate these
obstacles, too.

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

(1) We will NEVER have full employment because there are those satisfied
with what they can get without working.

Well, I define "full employment" as what we had back in the years from 1948 to
1967. A boy getting out of high school would normally be able to start a
lifelong career, and start a family, within a few years.

(2) "Reasonable income" is highly subjective.

Of course this is true. But we can, none the less, pick an obvious standard that
distinguishes those whose income is genuinely adequate from those who are not so
fortunate.

Most men want to get married and have kids. Some men don't do this because their
income is too low.

That is a simple standard threshold that is based on permanent human
characteristics, not the shifting characteristics of hi-tech toys.

The education systems has aided and abetted this stupidity. In the
US the best way for most people to get ahead is to have their own
business, but how to do this and how to be financially prudent
isn't taught in the public school systems.

There's something I can agree with.

John Savard

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 07:45:31 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 7:28:08 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Full (or near full) employment is necessary for the sort of economic
system we have. But full employment does not mean a healthy economy.
Slave states have full employment. And indeed, what we have borders on
that, with a large sector of our economy not being paid a wage
commensurate with their input to the economic system or a wage high
enough to live on properly.

What is required is full employment with a reasonable income. We lack
that.

(1) We will NEVER have full employment because there are those satisfied
with what they can get without working.

Which is fine. A certain level of freeloading is not problematic, and
is far better than the alternative of people earning less than their
productivity should demand.

(2) "Reasonable income" is highly subjective. Some consider having
a mansion is "reasonable" while others are satisfied with a cracker-
box house. Some enjoy partying, others are hermits, and others want
to support worthy causes (and that's also highly subjective).

No, it's really not that subjective. Standards exist in more developed
countries. It simply means that all people have adequate resources to
eat, be housed, have medical care, because of their income or
independent of it.

(3) In a society where goods are limited, there is ALWAYS a system
for deciding who gets what. In our society, it's gelt.

There is nothing wrong with people having different degrees of income
or wealth (within reason). That's not what is at issue here, and
modern developed societies (which does not include the U.S.) are still
highly capitalistic, but have social systems that don't make
everything dependent on wealth.

The BIG problem with the US economy is that it's debt-driven and
people are financially stupid.

No, the big problem with the U.S. economy is extreme income and wealth
disparity. Indeed, that lies at the root of essentially every single
social and political problem the U.S. faces today. Eliminating extreme
economic disparity reduces crime, expands rights, reduces domestic
violence, improves education... the list is endless.

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 9:21:15 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 07:45:31 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

....
The BIG problem with the US economy is that it's debt-driven and
people are financially stupid.

No, the big problem with the U.S. economy is extreme income and
wealth disparity. Indeed, that lies at the root of essentially every
single social and political problem the U.S. faces today. Eliminating
extreme economic disparity reduces crime, expands rights, reduces
domestic violence, improves education... the list is endless.

I must respectfully disagree. There are not enough wealthy to
make a drop in the bucket if their wealth were redistributed.
A trillion dollars divided among 10^8 people is only $10K, and
when it's gone it's gone.

The ONLY viable solution is to create more wealth at the lower
economic levels. I've already expressed my opinion on how to
do that. Economic disparity alone doesn't cause crime, bondage,
ignorance and violence. It takes poverty and a real or imagined
sense of inability to get ahead. Paying people an adequate wage
as Henry Ford did is indeed a good idea, but mandating wages by
fiat (without producing useful goods in return) is self-defeating.

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 15:28:24 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 9:21:15 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

No, the big problem with the U.S. economy is extreme income and
wealth disparity. Indeed, that lies at the root of essentially every
single social and political problem the U.S. faces today. Eliminating
extreme economic disparity reduces crime, expands rights, reduces
domestic violence, improves education... the list is endless.

I must respectfully disagree. There are not enough wealthy to
make a drop in the bucket if their wealth were redistributed.
A trillion dollars divided among 10^8 people is only $10K, and
when it's gone it's gone.

The ONLY viable solution is to create more wealth at the lower
economic levels. I've already expressed my opinion on how to
do that. Economic disparity alone doesn't cause crime, bondage,
ignorance and violence. It takes poverty and a real or imagined
sense of inability to get ahead. Paying people an adequate wage
as Henry Ford did is indeed a good idea, but mandating wages by
fiat (without producing useful goods in return) is self-defeating.

You don't understand. This has nothing to do with redistributing
wealth. Wealth inequality and income inequality are, in themselves, at
the root of most social ills. Not being rich. Not being poor.

In fact, economic disparity is the single greatest factor in all those
ills.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 15:28:24 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 9:21:15 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

No, the big problem with the U.S. economy is extreme income
and wealth disparity. Indeed, that lies at the root of
essentially every single social and political problem the U.S.
faces today. Eliminating extreme economic disparity reduces
crime, expands rights, reduces domestic violence, improves
education... the list is endless.

I must respectfully disagree. There are not enough wealthy to
make a drop in the bucket if their wealth were redistributed.
A trillion dollars divided among 10^8 people is only $10K, and
when it's gone it's gone.

The ONLY viable solution is to create more wealth at the lower
economic levels. I've already expressed my opinion on how to
do that. Economic disparity alone doesn't cause crime, bondage,
ignorance and violence. It takes poverty and a real or imagined
sense of inability to get ahead. Paying people an adequate wage
as Henry Ford did is indeed a good idea, but mandating wages by
fiat (without producing useful goods in return) is
self-defeating.

You don't understand. This has nothing to do with redistributing
wealth. Wealth inequality and income inequality are, in
themselves, at the root of most social ills. Not being rich. Not
being poor.

In fact, economic disparity is the single greatest factor in all
those ills.

Because I could use a good laugh, do feel free to explain how
you're going eliminate, or even reduce, that disaprity without
redistributing wealth, which is to say, put a gun to rich people's
heads, take their stuff, and give it to poor people.

Inquiring minds want to know.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
news
On Mon, 04 Mar 2019 11:05:55 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:

In fact, economic disparity is the single greatest factor in
all those ills.

Because I could use a good laugh, do feel free to explain how
you're going eliminate, or even reduce, that disaprity without
redistributing wealth, which is to say, put a gun to rich
people's heads, take their stuff, and give it to poor people.

Very high taxes on the wealthy

That's redistribution of wealth, retard.

to support public services is not
wealth redistribution.

Yes, retard, it is.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.