There still needs to be a saftey net, for those times of economic difficulty.

I make the assumption that solving poverty in our republic is a moral and ethical goal.

You are already paying people to do nothing, with less efficient public policies that can be perceived to engender forms of racism, classism, and generational poverty. We also have a War on Poverty that cannot solve poverty with a warfare-state economic model. In effect, you are already paying couch potatoes with welfare, as we currently know it, and not solving official poverty in our republic.

On what ethical or moral grounds do you justify your point of view? How do you solve for a "natural" unemployment rate? If a "natural" unemployment rate is not solved for, how can you claim you want people to work for money, in money based markets?

People on unemployment compensation would be paid a compensation for a lack of employment. This solves for a "natural" unemployment rate. Solving for that form of friction in the labor market can also simulate full employment of resources in that market. Everyone in our economy would benefit from that increase in human potential and productivity. In that regard, it could truly be a form of providing for the general welfare of the republic. That is my ethical and moral justification.

If that compensation is above the official poverty rate, it could also solve for poverty in our republic, in a simpler manner than than our current and inefficient War on Poverty; which does not solve poverty in our republic. We could be lowering our tax burden by reducing that cost of government with more efficient public policy that can actually solve poverty.

You are also ignoring the economic concept of "opportunity cost". People on a hypothetical, at-will unemployment compensation wage could go to school, pursue a vocation, or simple Happiness as enumerated in our Declaration of Independence. Unemployment compensation at-will, could solve generational poverty by providing a form of economic independence from forms of wage slavery; and its deleterious effect on work ethics.

and thats all well and good. but i'm still not going to pay someone to sit on their ass. period. end of story.



By a show of hands, who wants to pay someone to sit on their ass for the rest of their life?

Seriously anyone who feels like it, chime in yea or nea.

Human's have been a form of wage slavery eversince they existed. only difference is in what the wage is. Do you think that 5000's ago a farmer had the option? No, if he didn't work he didn't eat. That's all. Even when he did work, he might not eat.

Before you even say it Dan, yes we know we're not in the "Iron Age" anymore etc etc. The principle is still the same. If you aren't providing a useful service, I'm not going to give you a useful good or currency

How do you solve for a "natural" unemployment rate? If a "natural" unemployment rate is not solved for, how can you claim you want people to work for money, in money based markets?

On what ethical or moral grounds do you justify your point of view? In my view, subsidizing the parent of revolution and crime, for free; for the sake of mere lucre can be considered less ethical and less moral than having a Ninth Amendment privilege and immunity to pursue Happiness with public policy that solves for poverty.

We are no longer in the Iron Age to justify those obsolete morals.

How is requiring a bailout, by artificial persons that are not in official poverty justified? You are already establishing that moral and ethic as a basis for common law.

Can a real person be denied or disparaged the privileges and immunities given to artificial persons who can afford to hire entire accounting departments in order to comply with rational actor theory?

I am of the opinion that it should be immoral and is less ethical, to provide forms of welfare for artificial persons and deny or disparage that privilege and immunity to real persons.

We already have at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws. Implementing that type of public policy at the state level could be more effective than delegating that task to the general government of the Union.

Necessity. We need the banks to work, and people to be employed in our economy. So the good of the whole was the justification. Frankly I don't agree with it, at least not the way it was done. So if I don't agree with the bail outs of artificial person's (I don't even agree with the concept of and artificial person, I understand why it was done though) why would I agree with the bail outs of inidividuals.

I have no idea what rational actor theory is, but yes an individual is does not have to be given the privalages of an artificial person. The government loaned them that money, nothing says they have to give you the same thing. No where in the constitution does it garuntee you equal financial treatment by the government, only equal status under the law. As the bail out was not really a legal matter, but a financial matter then you have no rights comparative to the dreaded artificial persons.

In short you don't bring jack to the nation, and your individual well being is not relied upon by millions of americans so you don't fall under the general welfare clause of the constitution. The congress is free to ingore you as they see fit.





[qoute]
We are no longer in the Iron Age to justify those obsolete morals.
[/quote]
Ethics in morals are still the same iron age or no. Technology doesn't effect morals as much as you seem to think. The idea of "you reap what you sow" is still the basis for much of our morality.




And you are paid for your work, not for not working. At will employment is a good idea in some respects. In others its bad, as you can be let go with no warning.

How many more bailouts do you and our posterity want to pay for? There are plenty of valid reasons to deny and disparage welfare for artificial persons; especially, if no individual, real person and market participant, can claim to be in official poverty.

Hypothetically, why would banks stop working, if no market participant can claim to be in official poverty?

In my view, a poverty of money in money based markets could be considered a form of immorality to the institution of money based markets.

It is less ethical and could be considered less moral to not ameliorate poverty in our republic for real persons; especially when public monies are already being used for socialized public policies that do not provide for the general Welfare of the United States (e.g. the wars on drugs and terror); and provide forms of monetary support for artificial persons.

I am not sure I understand your line of reasoning when you state that real persons who are citizens of the several states, can be denied the privileges and immunities of persons of those same several states. What is your reasoning for why the privileges and immunities clauses would not apply to real persons residing in the several United States

I disagree that our environment in Nature does not affect any form of Nurture and morals. It must affect it since it contains the metrics of our objective reality .

Why do you believe someone has to "work" for a living in a modern and more developed economy? If it can be more efficient to simply pay less efficient labor market participant to not provide labor input to the economy; it can be more ethical to pay them to not provide labor input to the economy.

Providing for the general Welfare of the United States is a moral that is written into our Constitution.

How do i solve for unemployment? I don't. Its natural for a reason. People, quit, get fired, are unemployable etc. Shit happens.

I wasn't aware that my opinion had been asked about the bailouts. I was under the impression that THE OBAMA and His Holy Teleprompter just waved their magic wand and made it so. I don't remember getting the opportunity to vote about it.

Bail outs had nothing to do with poverty.

[quote]
Hypothetically, why would banks stop working, if no market participant can claim to be in official poverty?
[quote]
without saving money by the bulk of the people, yes they might.

Depends on if the poverty of money is by choice. If a person has the ability to get an education, and a good job, but chooses not to, then I see no problem with his poverty.

The war on terror falls under the realm of defense with is part of the general welfare.
Whether the war on drugs does is another matter. Certainly it can be argued that highly addictive substances which often result in death due to their negative health effects run counter to the general welfare if allowed to spread rampant. Legalization and Strict Regulation of such substances might be better for us better in the long run, but that is the governments decision to make.


I assume your referring to why the cororporations are getting bail outs and you arn't. Firstly much of the bail our money is being styled as loans, or purchases of stock. Meaning that while the gov. and by extension we the people may be getting ripped off in the deal, we are still getting something. Secondly the bail outs don't fall under any of the right or privaleges of a person real, artificial, or imagined.

If you believe they are, show me in the constitution where specifically it outlines a right to a bail out, or the privalege of a bail out.

The government decided that under the circumstance the bail out would be in the best interests of the nation of a whole. The governement is equally free to decide that not handing you money is in the best interests of the nation as a whole.

Name one difference in our core beliefs that has changed between now and 2000 years ago.

More Ethical? I thing your confusing Ethics with good business. A good business practice is one that increases profit. Whereas ethis is defined as motivation based on ideas of right and wrong, the philosophical study of moral values and rules. Notice the lack of profit or monetary gain in the definition of ethics. If businesses could legitemately benefit from paying people not to work, they they would do so. The fact that businesses don't is a sign that a group of individuals compelled by greed don't believe that your solution is in industries best interest.

Yes, for general not individual welfare. The government can choose to ignore and individual's welfare so long as they do not violate his civil rights.



Hate to tell you this, but the bail outs were just as much a republican thing. I'll leave it to the economist to decide if they were truly necessary, though I'm not a fan of the way they were don either.

A "natural" unemployment rate, as a form of friction in market for labor, can engender poverty in money based markets. By not solving for this, how can anyone claim they want to eliminate poverty in our republic?

If the goal is is to solve poverty in our republic it should be accomplished as effectively as the full faith and credit of public acts of the United States can make it.

In my view, a poverty of money in money based markets could be considered a form of immorality to the institution of money based markets.

It is less ethical and could be considered less moral to not ameliorate poverty in our republic for real persons; especially when public monies are already being used for socialized public policies that do not provide for the general Welfare of the United States (e.g. the wars on drugs and terror); and provide forms of monetary support for artificial persons.

A "natural" unemployment rate is as easy to solve, as it is to administer minimum wage laws that pay people to not provide labor input to the economy. Any individuals who want to provide labor input to the economy could do so with less friction in that market; and in that sense, could be more conducive to the pursuit of Happiness.

We elect representatives to government for a reason in our representative republic. The bureaucracy of a public sector is inherent in statism.

On what ethical or moral basis would you deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of real persons instead of those for artificial persons? In principle, anyone in the class of Persons should be treated indistinguishably before the law.