'Full employment' should mean everyone has as much work as they want. So it would be 2% or less, entirely made up of those people moving between jobs. But economists and their paymasters don't want this so they have invented NAIRU, Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. The idea is that below this unobservable (and therefore arbitrarily chosen) level of unemployment inflation starts to rise, and no amount of human misery is too great a price to pay to prevent that nightmare scenario.
Any local facilities can be nationalised. If that includes the relevant factory then it makes no difference where the head office is.
Drugs companies often have more than one product, and few of them are the only alternative. A government can prevent them doing any business in their country at all. It can set up a lab to make the drugs itself, or hire another company to do it.
However, in the UK at least, they tend not to take the muscular approach and I believe there have occasionally been cases where the relevant committee has decided that a particular drug has a poor cost/benefit ratio, and the company has not made sufficient concessions, so that drug is not available on the NHS. Apart from the few directly affected this is not a source of public outrage against the NHS. People know who the villains are.
we don't pay enough in taxes to cover those programs today. We certainly can't afford to cut taxes when last year we borrowed $600 billion
Government programs are not paid for by taxes or borrowing. They are paid for by spending new money.
The purposes of tax are: 1) Create demand for the government's money. 2) Withdraw excess money from the economy. 3) Discourage undesirable economic activity (vices).
The purposes of borrowing are: 1) Control interest rates. 2) Provide banks and other wealthy entities with welfare.
Taxes and spending should be varied according to the needs of the economy and society, they do not need to match. Borrowing should be replaced with interest paid on bank reserves.
Social Security works by the government creating money and giving it to people. As long as the resources that people want to buy with that money are available the model will endure.
What kind of social support do you think would enable high immigration and still enable integration?
Language and civics classes. Teach people what kind of country they have come to, which behaviours are expected and which are unacceptable.
Rather than let new people head straight to their ethnic ghetto and forget about them, spread them out across the country and help them find homes and jobs, or start businesses, in those places. Don't let ghettos develop.
The problem was leftist control of a council where them hamstrung themselves so tightly that they were ignoring child rape cases in case they offended a minority group
The problem was that police and officials had been trained badly so they wrongly believed that arresting criminal immigrants would be 'racist' and therefore shouldn't be done. That they could get this impression suggests to me that everyone involved, including the 'diversity' trainers, was a stupid bigot.
If you know of a way a government can pay for itself without collecting taxes or taking natural resources from the people (or simply descending into anarchy), I would love to hear your solution.
Money is created by the government. It must spend (or give) it out before it can collect it back in tax. Follow that logic and you will have discovered Modern Monetary Theory.
Out of curiosity, what OSS options are out there that offer the breadth of functionally that either SAP or Salesforce do?
I'm not familiar with either SAP or Salesforce feature sets but if you are seriously considering them you should look at Odoo first. You could use that, hire half a dozen full-time programmers to tweak it and still come out ahead. It is also more likely to be useful out of the box than SAP. If that's not open-sourcey enough there is also Tryton which was forked from an early version of Odoo. Not as many features, but some technical improvements. Odoo modules should be fairly easy to port if they have the right licence.
This is part of an experiment to see what happens to people's participation in the labor market after they've been guaranteed a certain amount of money.
Generally people don't "participate in the labor market" because there is an insufficient supply of suitable jobs. BIG is unlikely to increase supply much, though some recipients may be enabled to become self-employed. An alternative program is to guarantee jobs to anyone who wants one. Bill Mitchell compares the two ideas here.
What I don't see is how puritanical Christian ideals are synonymous with morality.
I reckon there are two kinds of morality, which I call 'ethics' and 'morals'.
Ethics is a largely self-consistent system of guidance for social behaviour, more or less logically derived from the Golden Rule and other human considerations.
Morals is a rag-bag of prejudices, tribal customs, and rules arbitrarily selected from an old book which was allegedly dictated to some bronze age barbarians by their invisible sky-daddy.
Moralists often are not even aware of the existence of ethics.
Obviously that one is not, on the face of it, a hateful opinion in either sense of the phrase. But most of them are, and I was addressing the OP's overall point. Presumably the OP included it because it's the type of thing you often hear in debates over abortion. In that context it implies hate of the pro-choicer (child murderer!), an accusation most pro-choicer's would find hateful I imagine.
Which means that when some crazed lunatic declares that the devil made him do it, we cannot blame the lunatic and should instead seek out and lock up the devil.
Only if you have poor logic skills. Lock 'em both up. Or if the lunatic manages to resist the Devil's imprecations just lock the Devil up for trying it. Which is essentially what Twitter are doing.
None of them are. They are merely expressions of hateful opinions. To be hate speech the speaker must incite others to hatred or violence against the object of his hatred.
People will simply stay home if they thing their candidate is to far behind.
Ah, you're worried about exit polls being published before the polls close. That shouldn't happen, I agree. But they should be taken, preferably at every polling station.
Not at all. It's par for the course in the USA. It's not all done by funking the machines of course. To pick one link at random: So good they named it twice.
Slashdot Mirror
'Full employment' should mean everyone has as much work as they want. So it would be 2% or less, entirely made up of those people moving between jobs.
But economists and their paymasters don't want this so they have invented NAIRU, Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. The idea is that below this unobservable (and therefore arbitrarily chosen) level of unemployment inflation starts to rise, and no amount of human misery is too great a price to pay to prevent that nightmare scenario.
Any local facilities can be nationalised. If that includes the relevant factory then it makes no difference where the head office is.
Drugs companies often have more than one product, and few of them are the only alternative. A government can prevent them doing any business in their country at all. It can set up a lab to make the drugs itself, or hire another company to do it.
However, in the UK at least, they tend not to take the muscular approach and I believe there have occasionally been cases where the relevant committee has decided that a particular drug has a poor cost/benefit ratio, and the company has not made sufficient concessions, so that drug is not available on the NHS.
Apart from the few directly affected this is not a source of public outrage against the NHS. People know who the villains are.
What happens when there is no competitor
With a national health service you have a monopsony—a single customer who can say "I'll pay this much and no more. Take it or leave it."
Furthermore, when that customer is the government they can revoke patents, pass laws, nationalise companies etc.
Government programs are not paid for by taxes or borrowing. They are paid for by spending new money.
The purposes of tax are:
1) Create demand for the government's money.
2) Withdraw excess money from the economy.
3) Discourage undesirable economic activity (vices).
The purposes of borrowing are:
1) Control interest rates.
2) Provide banks and other wealthy entities with welfare.
Taxes and spending should be varied according to the needs of the economy and society, they do not need to match.
Borrowing should be replaced with interest paid on bank reserves.
According to this Obama dropped over 12,000 bombs on Syria last year.
Social Security works by the government creating money and giving it to people. As long as the resources that people want to buy with that money are available the model will endure.
Greenspan kind of lays it out here.
What kind of social support do you think would enable high immigration and still enable integration?
Language and civics classes. Teach people what kind of country they have come to, which behaviours are expected and which are unacceptable.
Rather than let new people head straight to their ethnic ghetto and forget about them, spread them out across the country and help them find homes and jobs, or start businesses, in those places. Don't let ghettos develop.
The problem was leftist control of a council where them hamstrung themselves so tightly that they were ignoring child rape
cases in case they offended a minority group
The problem was that police and officials had been trained badly so they wrongly believed that arresting criminal immigrants would be 'racist' and therefore shouldn't be done. That they could get this impression suggests to me that everyone involved, including the 'diversity' trainers, was a stupid bigot.
Diaeresis#English
True, but once you understand what it is actually for you can can do it more sensibly, and in most cases less.
Money is created by the government. It must spend (or give) it out before it can collect it back in tax.
Follow that logic and you will have discovered Modern Monetary Theory.
Nah, that's state capitalism.
Socialism is when the workers, by various means, have some collective say in how much they get paid.
I'm not familiar with either SAP or Salesforce feature sets but if you are seriously considering them you should look at Odoo first. You could use that, hire half a dozen full-time programmers to tweak it and still come out ahead. It is also more likely to be useful out of the box than SAP.
If that's not open-sourcey enough there is also Tryton which was forked from an early version of Odoo. Not as many features, but some technical improvements. Odoo modules should be fairly easy to port if they have the right licence.
Combine a fast borer with the hyperloop and you could build a gravity train which can travel between stations without needing power.
Generally people don't "participate in the labor market" because there is an insufficient supply of suitable jobs. BIG is unlikely to increase supply much, though some recipients may be enabled to become self-employed.
An alternative program is to guarantee jobs to anyone who wants one. Bill Mitchell compares the two ideas here.
I reckon there are two kinds of morality, which I call 'ethics' and 'morals'.
Ethics is a largely self-consistent system of guidance for social behaviour, more or less logically derived from the Golden Rule and other human considerations.
Morals is a rag-bag of prejudices, tribal customs, and rules arbitrarily selected from an old book which was allegedly dictated to some bronze age barbarians by their invisible sky-daddy.
Moralists often are not even aware of the existence of ethics.
No pasaron!
Obviously that one is not, on the face of it, a hateful opinion in either sense of the phrase. But most of them are, and I was addressing the OP's overall point.
Presumably the OP included it because it's the type of thing you often hear in debates over abortion. In that context it implies hate of the pro-choicer (child murderer!), an accusation most pro-choicer's would find hateful I imagine.
Only if you have poor logic skills. Lock 'em both up. Or if the lunatic manages to resist the Devil's imprecations just lock the Devil up for trying it. Which is essentially what Twitter are doing.
You were fried to a crisp in July, and frozen solid in January. But on average it was lovely!
You've never run into naval ratings on shore leave from their nuclear powered aircraft carrier, I presume.
None of them are. They are merely expressions of hateful opinions. To be hate speech the speaker must incite others to hatred or violence against the object of his hatred.
People will simply stay home if they thing their candidate is to far behind.
Ah, you're worried about exit polls being published before the polls close. That shouldn't happen, I agree. But they should be taken, preferably at every polling station.
bar exit polling
Why on Earth would you do that? How will we tell when an election has been stolen?
Not at all. It's par for the course in the USA.
It's not all done by funking the machines of course. To pick one link at random:
So good they named it twice.