• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy limping back to strength

Golden. I am asking you to tell me exactly what impact that those on welfare have on the Crime Rate when they run out of money. Why is this a red herring? You want to talk crime rates as they pertain to poverty and welfare, then let's go down that path.

The original study i posted, explained what happens. Go back and re read the study, the answer you seek is there.

And as for removing social welfare, I am not for that, I am all for helping those who truly need it, however, taking those off it who use it to SQUEAK by and then supplement with criminal acts are merely perpetuating a circle. Given enough time off welfare they would either die, get locked up, or take the first step to becoming functioning members of society. It's not the pretty answer, but people need to take responsibility for their actions and stop expecting handouts.

I respect your opinion. However, such a welfare system protects capitalism. This is not an opinion, only a fact.
 
But you continue to ignore the other incentives offered in the US. Higher wages that lead to higher standards of living. Why is welfare (little money) a greater incentive than employment (more money than welfare)?

Because the incentive for employment is not always greater than what you get with welfare. With employment, you need to work, but you also get some money. With welfare, you don't need to work, but you get a small amount of money. You'll only get off welfare when you value the money you get from employment more than the time you get from not working and the money you get from welfare. So welfare creates a greater incentive for not working, and so increases unemployment.

Of course it is. However, you are the one who is against such measures.

The only thing I'll say about unemployment insurance is that it is much more temporary and you put money into it. I'd rather see total private control of it, but it is a better system than welfare.
 
I respect your opinion. However, such a welfare system protects capitalism. This is not an opinion, only a fact.

Maybe a fact in your eyes, but it's only an opinion.
 
Maybe a fact in your eyes, but it's only an opinion.

I advise you to study up on labor economics. Austrian ideas will do you harm in discussions of economics.
 
I advise you to study up on labor economics. Austrian ideas will do you harm in discussions of economics.

Another opinion backed up by nothing.
 
Another opinion backed up by nothing.

You claim to be pro markets, but refuse to acknowledge the cyclical instability that pressures markets. Social safety nets have been created to deal with the effects of such instability, helping to remove the under consumption that plagues cyclical recessions.

You will go on to say under consumption is needed all while ignoring the painful consequences and degradation of human capital that accompanies it. Sorry, but the world is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

Keynesianism and social safety nets protect capitalism from its embedded instability. I have already proved this in regards to time frames, of which you shuffled away with comments of severity. I am still waiting for a response in the deflation thread.

And now, your beloved Austrians are beginning to champion a devoted market socialist. Quite the irony?
 
You claim to be pro markets, but refuse to acknowledge the cyclical instability that pressures markets. Social safety nets have been created to deal with the effects of such instability, helping to remove the under consumption that plagues cyclical recessions.

You will go on to say under consumption is needed all while ignoring the painful consequences and degradation of human capital that accompanies it. Sorry, but the world is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

It's a correction, and previously people were creating things that now people don't want. We should shift production, not demand. Shifting demand is only going to lead to problems because people want what they want, but people don't really care what they produce as long as it gets them a nice return.

Keynesianism and social safety nets protect capitalism from its embedded instability. I have already proved this in regards to time frames, of which you shuffled away with comments of severity. I am still waiting for a response in the deflation thread.

Keynesianism brought about the lack of correction of this recession, the Great Stagflation, and the Great Depression. It causes unsustainable growth because you can't fake demand. People are eventually going to go back to what they really want.

And now, your beloved Austrians are beginning to champion a devoted market socialist. Quite the irony?

That has nothing to do with me.
 
You claim to be pro markets, but refuse to acknowledge the cyclical instability that pressures markets. Social safety nets have been created to deal with the effects of such instability, helping to remove the under consumption that plagues cyclical recessions.

You will go on to say under consumption is needed all while ignoring the painful consequences and degradation of human capital that accompanies it. Sorry, but the world is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

Keynesianism and social safety nets protect capitalism from its embedded instability. I have already proved this in regards to time frames, of which you shuffled away with comments of severity. I am still waiting for a response in the deflation thread.

And now, your beloved Austrians are beginning to champion a devoted market socialist. Quite the irony?


Translation: welfare keeps the poor from rising up and killing the rich.
 
So give the thief the money instead of punishing the bad behavior? That's a recipe for a great society.

So now all poor people are thieves? Hilarious!
 
You claim to be pro markets, but refuse to acknowledge the cyclical instability that pressures markets. Social safety nets have been created to deal with the effects of such instability, helping to remove the under consumption that plagues cyclical recessions.

You will go on to say under consumption is needed all while ignoring the painful consequences and degradation of human capital that accompanies it. Sorry, but the world is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

Under consumption? Relative to what?

Degradation of human capital? What's that?

Keynesianism and social safety nets protect capitalism from its embedded instability.

Huh?
 
Also, what is "under consumption"? Is there some optimal level of consumption that I'm unaware of?
 
Also, what is "under consumption"? Is there some optimal level of consumption that I'm unaware of?

Yeah, it's where we're not allowed to save any money so the government has to provide all of the services that saved money would do for us.
 
And that is a bad thing because?

Welfare creates a class of dependent people with a sense of entitlement. It also institutionalizes an inner feeling of inferiority. It leads to a high percentage of fatherless families, incredibly high dropout rates, and a serial level of unwanted pregnancies, drug abuse, and violence.

And it sickens me how people become so powerful and wealthy exploiting people like this, a la Jackson, Sharpton, Clinton, Pelosi, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom