Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

Go here and say that...I fucking dare you motherfucker.

 

Except it's not simply people's labor that makes them productive. It's capital too. Here's an example: One guy using his fingers will get 100 times less work done than a guy using a shovel. A shovel = A capital good. Further, one guy with a shovel will get 100 times less work done than a guy with a backhoe. A backhoe = a capital good. Also, backhoes and qualified operators do not just appear in places where they will benefit society and start digging. You need people who can arrange for laborers, finance the capital goods, and have a good idea of a business and where to set up shop. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which job is harder, operating the back hoe, or having the finances and business savvy necessary to bring the backhoes and the operators together and have them do something that benefits society. So while they may expend less physical energy, the organizers are MORE useful; as a result of their efforts, MORE is produced; and so they're entitled to MORE compensation. This isn't a game of "smoke and mirrors", it's economics. I really wish I could sit you down and explain all this stuff to you. But alas, a forum has it's limits.

I laughed out loud while reading this. "I fucking dare you motherfucker" just sounds so intense. Those tent dwellers don't fuck around huh!

All jokes aside though, tent cities are tragic. I don't think anyone for or against welfare would deny that. But do you actually believe that their numbers are growing because of a lack of welfare?! We're spending more on welfare now than we ever have in our entire history. What those people need are jobs and opportunity. Welfare checks won't give them that. In fact, they'll further take them away. Any money they receive via welfare must first be taken from those same productive people that could potentially offer them the jobs and opportunity that they truly need.

 

Really? You think investors and developers "bring the backhoes and the operators together and have them do something that benefits society"? Don't make me laugh
They do it for profits, and that's the only reason so many jobs have been out-sourced... less wages to pay, more profits.

Do you actually believe cutting them off will reduce their numbers?
'Trickle down' has never proved out in theory or evidence.

 

Precisely, zombie.

These people are the ones who have betrayed our country and sent jobs to the other side of the world for personal gain. They're not economic heroes who simply need to be freed from the yoke of oppressive taxes, before magically healing the economy -- they're the ones who fucked it up -- but they're not the ones hurting from it.

I have never met someone who worked with their hands who was not enterprising enough to go find work without help (though if there's no work, there's no work). They can work for a contractor (who usually works right alongside them) or they can simply hire out their skills.... and they do. Often both. It's not investors who give backhoe drivers work.

 

One subject at a time please.

Although you did begin with what could have been expanded into a nicely reasoned and rational analogy, it would appear that your only intent was to provide a baseless and false accusation. This monster we call government has evolved into a creature with an ever growing number of teats, feeding ever more voraciously upon the productive members of society resulting only in the creation of an ever growing number of dependents by failing and/or refusing to wean those who should and/or could be weaned to the benefit of both the government and those who are truly unable to be weaned. Force is sometimes a necessary tool and can be done in a way quite beneficial to the one(s) on which it is being applied.

 

Go where?

 

Roo,

Does the Left support isolationism?


Jobs are moved abroad for many reasons, very good reasons in fact, and most often for reasons which are beneficial to American consumers as American producers could not find workers willing to produce the items at a wage which would allow it to be priced at a level that would be affordable to but a small portion of the public in the U.S.

How much would an Ipad, Ipod, or a home computer cost if produced entirely in the U.S.?

Why do Japanese car manufacturers produce products in the U.S. instead of keeping the manufacture in Japan and exporting their product to the U.S.?

Many countries do not allow foreign businesses to earn money in their country and send it back home immediately, one I know requires the profits remain in country for a minimum of 3 years prior to being exchanged or transferred out of the country.

The wages earned by workers are profits. A primary problem is that when government program benefits exceed the wage one can earn from a job, and income earned from a job could reduce or even eliminate the benefits received from government programs, people are less motivated to replace the benefits with a job which requires physical and/or mental labors.

If you were receiving the equivalent of $10 an hour from government as a result of being unemployed, at what wage level per hour would you be willing to give up that benefit and accept employment? Would $10.25 be enough? Would $10.25 become more attractive if the government decreased the benefit to equal $5.00 an hour or less?

 

There seems to be some kind of disconnect. Yes, they do it for Profit. Profits result from the thing being a benefit to society. How does a business make profits without providing a service that consumers find beneficial?

Why is there this irrational hatred of profits anyway? Profits result when the finished product is worth more than the resources that were used to create it. For example, If I spend $10 investing in a lemonade stand, and end up making $15 in return ($5 profits). The service I supplied was worth $5 more to society than the cost of providing it. A net gain for society! Isn't that a good thing?

Everything humans do is for profit. Every action you've taken today has been because you hoped the benefit you'd gain would be greater than the energy expended in completing the task. (profit)

Another disconnect. Who do contractors work for? Contractors manage construction sites and are hired by clients (investors). The Contractor may have the responsibility of directly overseeing the site, but it's still the investors who are responsible for the project, financing the capital goods, and bringing everyone involved (contractors, architects, backhoe operators, etc) together to complete the project. And again, while they might not expend more physical labor than the contractors and backhoe workers that they employ, their service is in much higher demand, and their efforts result in much more produced (and so they receive a higher reward).

This is rather silly. An investor is simply someone who risks his savings in the hopes of making more in return. EVERY SINGLE employee of EVERY SINGLE business, owes their job to some kind of investor.

It needs to be done in a responsible way, but yes.. I actually believe that.

Actually, my entire argument with Balbus was about Corporate Welfare (subsidies and bailouts). I was against it. Balbus was for it. (You sided with him I believe).

http://www.libertariantee.com

 

I don't know, I don't speak for "the left", either in the traditional or modern sense.

If you move out of the country, it doesn't matter how many more people can buy something, it's not sustainable because in the long run, it just makes america poorer and fucks everything.

How much it would cost is not the point, but many things only cost marginally less when produced elsewhere. The middleman takes up the extra.

What japanese car manufacturers do has nothing to do with this. That's like saying that apple could build iPads here for the US market, and in china for the chinese one, just to save on shipping and accomidate right hand drive. You think nissan or toyota (both big US employers) are shipping a SINGLE car to japan to sell? I very much doubt it -- and they also both have huge markets in japan.

I don't care how much less they could pay per hour, the problem is manipulating exchange rates and poor people for rich people to get richer, with the end result being that the rich get very rich, the chinese get slightly richer and gain a lot of human capital and know-how, and america as a whole gets a lot poorer.

 

If the contractor gets a contract, what bathers most is that he finds cheap lobour for the work and that means he can not pay for human lobour which gets tired and other stuffs like food etc and live the machines that can do the same job as human.
We can put all our anger to the authorities but the truth is modern world is affected by modern science and technology.
There wont be a time when jobs are enough but rather the number of unemployed will increase every year as much as the substitution of human to machine for lobour.
USA can try to create jobs, but how can it do it without affecting other jobs?
To me the local person will never stop to complain because there will never be enough jobs unless you can create one on your own.
We should stop complaining and feeling self pity and do something about it

 

In any event what you speak for is quite Left of what I find acceptable to be governed by.

Leaving Left and Right aside, are you supportive of isolationism?

 

Today's world the poor remains power and the rich gets richer. No government can change that not even USA any thing

 

That's an unsubstantiated opinion when in reality it really does matter how many more people can buy something they want or need when they would have had to do without otherwise. And it is sustainable both at home and abroad where those abroad are then becoming able to purchase imports from the U.S. or other countries as a result of the wages they earning from jobs in which have been made available to them where they can produce products and/or services less costly then exported to the U.S. or other countries.

If the cost was really only marginally less, then what's holding back the competition?

 

Indie

Re: evasion

You are once again asking me to repeat things that you haven’t addressed before but here is my dilemma – if I repeat something that has been posted one thousand times only to have it evaded by you what is to stop you evading it for the one thousandth and once time?

So now here is an idea how about this - I’ll start up an old issue but if you use one of your evasion tactics I can ban you, say for a week?

 

Wrong its great that you are back - are you actually going to address the criticisms of your views I raised earlier? Pages 76-77

 

Wrong

Oh that’s just evasion – I think I have a fair understanding of your views I just don’t agree with them and have raised a number of criticisms of them – the problem is that you don’t seem willing to address those criticism.

 

If you evade what was originally evaded by me, and than accuse me of evading, is what I'm evading different from what you're evading, or are we both evading what the other evades and just evading the fact we're both evading it?

Edit: lemme go look at them

 

Wrong

Oh if you think I've evaded something, I'd be happy to address it.

 

Is there a way to jump to a specific number?

 

Ok.. Post 505 was where u brought up the irrelevant topic of insurance into the parable, which has nothing to do with what my critique of your manufacturing bailout was. Which was, "any money given to manufacturing must be extracted from other sectors of the economy, and so money spent to prop up bad businesses can only be done at the expense of successful ones."

What is your critique of this and I shall address.

Also, there is zero evidence that letting those businesses fail would cause a complete economic collapse. ZERO. Youre like a spigot for government propaganda. America has recovered from every single economic depression it's faced, with.. Or without bailouts. However, there IS evidence that the recovery was faster during periods where there were NO bailouts. The depression of 1920-1921 is a great example. Also the majority of depressions in the 1800s. The two slowest economic recoveries were the ones met with the greatest amount of government intervention (bailouts, public works, etc). They prolong downturns, not help them. And they do it for the exact reason I stated above.

This is my address to the "criticisms" of pages 76-77 your response?