Communism

Crow: Job displacement is not always a 1-1 correlation. You can verify that too.

It's more than you think and it's getting worse. NZT estimates put structural unemployment at 3%, and the best economic estimates I've seen have a baseline of 5%. It was 0% only about 50 years ago. That's extremely rapid.

Honestly I don't blame them for going on narcotics if they have to deal with the dehumanization you offer them every day. I believe everybody is valuable without exception and we should care for all people with kindness, not hate. Reality is that everyone is just trying to find the best way in life for them. That's not so easy for everyone.

I too hate corporate welfare.

admin: Job displacement is not always a 1-1 correlation. You can verify that too.


Who said it was?

Honestly I don't blame them for going on narcotics if they have to deal with the dehumanization you offer them every day.


Dehumanization of trailer trash? I have never seen a place that has jacked up more kids than trailer parks.

And if you abuse drugs, then you are dehumanizing yourself. Just proving your lack of worth. Don't pin it on the honest cynic.

I believe everybody is valuable without exception and we should care for all people with kindness, not hate.

There is a place for everyone in the working world. I'll personally welcome them with open arms.

Trailer trash? They produce among the best drug dealers. Bring some of that capitalist spirit on to the streets.

Crow: You did, when you said jobs are displaced into new industries.

You know I condemn any use of drugs, but that's no excuse to hate on somebody, much less stereotype a group.

Structural unemployment literally means there are more unemployed than you are able to welcome with open arms. That's the reality of the job market right now.

admin: You did, when you said jobs are displaced into new industries.

I never said one job was displaced into a new industry.

I implied that jobs were displaced outside of an industry, while new jobs were created within the industry.

There was no reference to it being proportionate either, oh great king of strawman!

You know I condemn any use of drugs, but that's no excuse to hate on somebody, much less stereotype a group.

You are the only one talking about hatred here.

I don't hate inner city loafers, trailer trash, or backwater hicks. I just think they ought to start making their own money.


Structural unemployment literally means there are more unemployed than you are able to welcome with open arms.

Such a thing never existed and most likely never will.

There is often a shortage of employers , but there is an abundance of potential sources for capital.

Crow: Then technology creates unemployment if it's disproportionate.

Sure you hate them, that's why you use hateful language. I don't think you even realize that the words you use can have that effect.

Capital =/= creating productive work. Employing people for the sake of employment is a futile endeavor.

admin: Then technology creates unemployment if it's disproportionate.

I never said it was disproportionate either, oh great king of strawman!

Sure you hate them, that's why you use hateful language.


When you don't pander to every category of people, you get accused of hate speech. Your kind is intolerable.

I had a good friends that came from trailer parks. They very honest, genuine, and compassionate. I am not going to lie though. These were people who made a living off of stealing and selling narcotics, breaking into peoples homes, and exploiting the welfare system.

Not tolerating that isn't hate speech. Making honest generalizations is not hate speech either. Stop being a dingus.

Capital =/= creating productive work. Employing people for the sake of employment is a futile endeavor.

Okay, obviously you are talking up your ass and not following me.

There are opportunities everywhere for those willing to take them. States and corporations make it hard as hell to pursue them, but they never went away.

Crow: Well pick a side. Whether proportionate or not, technology means that less work is available over time.

Generalizations can be hate speech even if they're honest, which BTW yours aren't. Calling me names isn't acceptable behavior on this site. This is one of those places where you have to pander to everybody insofar as you have to show them the common respect of refraining from name-calling of site members.

I'm saying those opportunities are myths. Follow me now?

admin: Whether proportionate or not, technology means that less work is available over time.


No, I disagree.

Most of the time it is disproportionate though, on the positive end. More jobs are created within the industry. Economies adapt towards the population they have.

Generalizations can be hate speech even if they're honest, which BTW yours aren't.

Yes they are, but what would you know?

I'm saying those opportunities are myths. Follow me now?

I am saying that they are not.

Give me any person who is unemployed and not severely mentally disabled. I will give you shit they could do for money.

Crow: So let's take the farming industry since it was brought up earlier. Has farm tech increased or decreased jobs available?

Exactly. Their work would be shit. And not productive. It would be pointless to employ them. The economy would do better to just pay them for nothing.

admin: So let's take the farming industry since it was brought up earlier. Has farm tech increased or decreased jobs available?

I'd say it created more jobs in general, but less jobs in the agricultural field (we are talking about a world in which 90% of people had to be feudal serfs to fulfill the needs of the nation)

There is still unofficial serfdom in Africa, so a land owner needs less peasants to farm with more technology. Yet more technology also reduces the amount of land needed to be operated to fulfill a market, which opens up more capacity for other labor jobs on that same plot of land.

It also paves way for people to take new positions, when the economic baseline has always been agriculture. Like I have always said, there are billions of ways to make money.


Exactly. Their work would be shit. And not productive.

Their work would make money. That is what constitutes being productive in my book.

Seriously, give me a person who is unemployed and not severely mentally disabled, and I will tell them something they can do to create a livelihood.

The economy would do better to just pay them for nothing.

The economy would be best off not putting unproductive members of society on life support.

You shouldn't help those that refuse to help themselves.

Crow: That land has largely gone into having more fields. We have a booming population yet more than enough food to sustain everyone. Personally I find that insanely cool esp. since so many of us eat insanely inefficient-to-produce foods ie meat.

Then why not the "work" of going to the unemployment office or whatever to collect a check?

admin: That land has largely gone into having more fields. We have a booming population yet more than enough food to sustain everyone

Which is a totally different issue.

I prefer a diverse economy. If you want to create more farming land though, then what's the problem? That would have nothing to do with my contention.

Then why not the "work" of going to the unemployment office or whatever to collect a check?

They are collecting money that was stolen. They are not helping to allow the production of more money. Their existence becomes one of entitlement and a lack of ethics.

It would be one thing if they were doing the stealing themselves, in an honest and non-abusive fashion.

In other words, they are the worst form of parasites

Crow: Freeing up land doesn't diversify the economy. Those people "forced to compete" when they moved off farms, were actually largely treated as slaves during the industrial revolution. Many died of terrible diseases, jobless on the streets. The modern idea of social security was BORN out of this movement.

No work produces more money unless you work at a money printer. At best it produces more VALUE. And economic value does not necessarily correlate to pay. If it did then big business CEOs wouldn't be paid so many bonuses.

admin: Freeing up land doesn't diversify the economy.

Not inherently.

We established a long time ago that you do not have basic comprehension skills.

Those people "forced to compete" when they moved off farms, were actually largely treated as slaves during the industrial revolution.

The people on the farms were the slaves.

Serfs and niggers, all working for individuals with more money and whiter skin.

No work produces more money unless you work at a money printer.

What I meant to say is the production of more valuable money.

A huge population of unproductive members of society, warrants the production and continued existence of a devalued and worthless currency.

Unproductive members of society just soak up welfare, despite it being rightfully earned by those who are economically productive.

It is essentially flushing money down the toilet. Money that the working class core could use to survive.


And economic value does not necessarily correlate to pay. If it did then big business CEOs wouldn't be paid so many bonuses.

Who said it did?

Indulge me, oh great king of strawman!

Crow: And those so-called unproductive people - who in fact society owes a great deal to since most of the value held by society was not created by that society - they just hoard up their money? That would be sucking it out of the economy since it can't flow around anymore. Or, do they spend it - IDK, taking your fantasy account, do they buy drugs or something? If they spend it, that's economic value. Remember the formula for GDP works on both the supply and demand side. That's why government spending is part of GDP.

I find it funny that you accuse me of strawmanning that point literally immediately after you again conflate money with value. Money is just coins and notes. Value is the worth we ascribe to those coins and notes.

admin: And those so-called unproductive people - who in fact society owes a great deal to since most of the value held by society was not created by that society

Okay, speak in comprehensible terms.

You are not Gollum.

That would be sucking it out of the economy since it can't flow around anymore.

The nature of money is that it will be spent. Read a book about it.

The unproductive members of society that collect welfare, are the only group of people that spend money they did not earn their livelihood themselves.

That's why government spending is part of GDP.

The money the government spends, is money that the people they stole it from would of spent themselves.

Sure, you could advocate some kind of Keynesian ethics, but the cost of that is the infinite raping of the working class. Absolutely disgusting.


I find it funny that you accuse me of strawmanning that point literally immediately after you again conflate money with value. Money is just coins and notes. Value is the worth we ascribe to those coins and notes.

No shit. I just said that in the last post.

That's why people who are unproductive do nothing but devalue currency. The worst kind of parasites.

*Edit

The unproductive members of society that collect welfare, are the only group of people that spend money they did not earn themselves.

Crow: Question is when it will be spent and when the value of that spending is realized. In the short run money can get stuck in investments. To the point that feds lower the OCR and that's how bubbles happen.

As I said, everyone has earned a livelihood simply by being human. Society is never self-built.

Big difference between rape and redistribution. Your body has a much higher standard of autonomy than your wallet. Insofar as it keeps the poor happy, I'm glad to pay a relatively small share of my income. All people deserve to be able to eat.

admin: "Better" is relative.
Labor is necessary for survival, we get our goods and services by labor, contributing to receive from the economy is how it works(and makes sense).
For the downtrodden unemployed, states are better. For greedy fat cats, charity is better.
I always thought it was the other way around.
I don't get how charity is for greedy fat cats unless it is forced out of people(state welfare), but okay(strange reasoning).

Bi0Hazard: Labor becomes less necessary for survival as technology improves, also. Many professions once vital for survival are now gone.

With charity, the fat cats don't have to pay. So of course they support it.