• 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!

Biden's Popularity is Down to 33%: Quinnipiac

danielpalos said:
Unequal protection of the laws is what causes (simple) poverty in our republic.

Equal protection of our at-will employment laws for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States could solve simple poverty in our republic in a market friendly manner that helps automatically stabilize our economy by solving for the deleterious capital effects of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.

One study claimed to have observed a multiplier of two for that public policy.

As a form of "minimum wage" it is much simpler since we could simply raise the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue when necessary. And, our economy would function more efficiently.
Click to expand...

Your seem sincere enough but you also tend to seem to want to avoid confronting the body of economic work that contradicts your beliefs.

Since you brought up Pareto Optimality I thought perhaps you were familiar with Arrow-Debreu and the general belief within economics that markets under idealized conditions produce Pareto Optimal resource allocation. It appears this is not actually the case.

Certainly anyone who claims to be seeking Pareto Optimality in one breath would not being extolling minimum wages legislation with the next.
 
diz said:
Your seem sincere enough but you also tend to seem to want to avoid confronting the body of economic work that contradicts your beliefs.
Click to expand...
There is no body of economic work that contradicts my beliefs. Usually, it is just a misunderstanding of the concepts by those of the opposing view.
 
Da Mole said:
Wrong again. The conservatives and the independents will not be voting against Biden because we don't like him, we will vote him out if dumb enough to run because he is a total failure, in every respect.
Click to expand...
Plenty of ‘Nero’s’ around whistling past the graveyard.
 
danielpalos said:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That means requiring Cause in an at-will employment State is extra-Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Regarding the highlighted portion, I don't believe that the US Constitution addresses workplace relations.

If you believe that it does, then please cite that passage from the Constitution and please cut and paste.

If it is not addressed, then it is not a part of the Constitution.
 
Crakhobarbie said:
Look, poverty regularly effects some lower wage workers. If you don't agree, fine.
Click to expand...

I didn't read your post. Since you chose to ignore my post, I ignored your post as well.
 
code1211 said:
Regarding the highlighted portion, I don't believe that the US Constitution addresses workplace relations.

If you believe that it does, then please cite that passage from the Constitution and please cut and paste.

If it is not addressed, then it is not a part of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
It is about equal protection of the laws.
 
code1211 said:
I didn't read your post. Since you chose to ignore my post, I ignored your post as well.
Click to expand...
I read your post. Your comments don't change the fact that Poverty is a thing that routinely afflicts those in the US that earn wages.
 
danielpalos said:
There is no body of economic work that contradicts my beliefs. Usually, it is just a misunderstanding of the concepts by those of the opposing view.
Click to expand...

So what exactly did Arrow and Debreu get wrong? Are they going to take back their Nobel Prizes and give them to you once you straighten their misunderstanding of the concepts out?
 
diz said:
So what exactly did Arrow and Debreu get wrong? Are they going to take back their Nobel Prizes and give them to you once you straighten their misunderstanding of the concepts out?
Click to expand...
You need to be specific. No one is claiming equal protection of the laws solving simple poverty engenders any economic inefficiencies.
 
code1211 said:
Is there any legal system anywhere in any country at any point in history that provided what you seem to be looking for in US Law today?
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that is relevant? We have our own federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. This is what we are supposed to be doing with the social-ism of Government: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 
Crakhobarbie said:
I read your post. Your comments don't change the fact that Poverty is a thing that routinely afflicts those in the US that earn wages.
Click to expand...

To me, "routinely" does not indicate that the effect is absent in 90% of the examples.
 
danielpalos said:
You need to be specific. No one is claiming equal protection of the laws solving simple poverty engenders any economic inefficiencies.
Click to expand...

Well, I asked you to be specific about what Arrow-Debreu got wrong. My recollection is that they were the ones credited with the Nobel Prize for describing what sort of conditions lead to Pareto Optimal outcomes -- and it was competitive markets.

And generally it was not things like “minimum wage laws”. I’d go as far as saying someone who thinks minimum wage laws result in Pareto Optimal outcomes has very little idea about what the term “Pareto Optimal Outcomes” even means. It strikes me as being on the order of having the belief that “having sex is the best way to preserve virginity”. Like, if someone said that you’d seriously question if they understood what “virginity” means.

That said, I don’t want to completely discount the possibility that everyone who disagrees with you is a fascist and/or misinformed. That’s why I think if you can go before the Nobel prize committee and explain to them exactly how Arrow and Debreu were misinformed Fascists they’d probably award you their Nobel prizes for setting the economic world back on track after a 50+ year diversion.
 
danielpalos said:
Why do you believe that is relevant? We have our own federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. This is what we are supposed to be doing with the social-ism of Government: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Within the words you post here is the meaning the should show you that there is nothing presented that offers or seeks equality of outcomes.

Liberty for all includes the liberty to choose. Individuals may choose to not be indolent. They may choose to be addicts. Whatever they choose, they are given the liberty to make their own choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom