Quote from: challengerX on January 29, 2015, 11:59:03 AM

Far more jobs

Outsourcing doesn't result in job losses.

Wait, is that chart trying to tell me that unemployment only topped 6%? That doesn't seem right..

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 29, 2015, 12:01:33 PM

Quote from: challengerX on January 29, 2015, 11:59:03 AM

Far more jobs

Outsourcing doesn't result in job losses.

Wait, is that chart trying to tell me that unemployment only topped 6%? That doesn't seem right..

The natural rate is the average or 'usual' rate considering the state of the economy--a sort of base-line. It's possible for the unemployment rate to be exacerbated or ameliorated by a number of factors.

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 29, 2015, 11:31:35 AM

Quote from: challengerX on January 29, 2015, 10:28:13 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 29, 2015, 10:10:13 AM

Quote from: challengerX on January 29, 2015, 03:39:58 AM

I don't want to be rude because I like you, but you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. The republicans want to do nothing but run America into the ground and have done so almost every time they've been elected.

I like you too, but you're incredibly partisan, at least when it's against Republicans. Republicans, quite clearly, don't want to run the U.S. into the ground, and whether you think their policies will do that is an interesting discussion.

But let's be honest here, the Democrats who've 'endowed' the country with good economic growth have done so largely by adopting centrist/conservative policies; Kennedy's tax-cuts (ruined by the Great Society and LBJ), Clinton's appointment of Robert Rubin as head of the CEA and the maintenance of PAYGO rules. And when Republicans have fucked the economy, it's been because of profligacy a la Bush, which I have a hard time categorising as conservative.

I didn't even come out for the Republicans in my post, anyway, I just said Rubio was better than Hillary.

Of course I'm partisan when there are only two parties and one of them wants to destroy America for everybody who isn't rich. Sorry, but you're wrong. There has almost never been a time conservatism has caused progress for humanity or created a stable economy. They actively deny climate change, it's the party of racists, they're incredibly classist, they hate immigrants. There's nothing good about them.

You're seriously delusional if you think the goal of a party is to ruin a country. There's no logic behind that reasoning.

The logic is they do what benefits them and nobody else, effectively ruining the economy.

Quote

You have an unhealthy and ignorant bias

Hey Camnator.

Quote

that proves Meta's thread correct when liberals are more close-mined than conservatives.

That was the most bullshit study I've ever seen and I wouldn't have believed it if it was saying the opposite either.

Quote

The Democrats want to make people that work hard feel like the bad guys by taxing them to hell.

So people working minimum wage don't work hard? But of course, give the poor millionaires a break.

Quote

If you SERIOUSLY think Republicans have never benefited the economy, are racisists, xenophobes, etc

I don't think, I know. They're against immigration reform, they're against same sex marriage, republican politicians have said racist things countless times and have tried bringing back Jim Crow laws.

Quote

then you're the definition of ignorance and it's disgusting you're acting in a fascist manner

>mfw you randomly string together words trying to insult me

Great, and so do Democrats. You keep ignoring that both parties only care about lining their pockets

dat fucking damage control. It's pretty evident with your delusional Republican hate that you would jump all over it if it said conservatives were more close-minded

People that don't actively search for jobs and just collect benefits don't do jack shit and Democrats reward that behavior. News Flash: The purpose of taxation is NOT to hurt and humiliate a specific class like the Democrats want to do to the upper-class, the point of taxation is to raise revenue in a FAIR manner. In fact, a large portion of millionaire only stay such for a short period then others take the position; it's a cycle and heavily taxing the upper-class makes people afraid of working to make money and instead stay middle-class

No, you don't know. If you think Republicans are all what you claim then you're an uneducated ignorant child that has no business discussing politics when you type like a Mother Jones article

And when New Era shuts down a factory in New York resulting in 400 people being layed off and opens up more factories in China, people are losing jobs.

Right, and then they go and find other jobs which create more wealth than their old ones because it was more economical for their old jobs to be done in China.

Be realistic.

I am.

I don't care if 300 people end up on welfare if the total economic wealth is increased. It's as close to a fact as you can get in economics that free trade is a massive boon, and controls on imports and exports (including capital) retard economic growth. If you want more jobs in the country, you make it a more competitive place to put your capital.

Now, since the natural rate of unemployment hasn't massively altered since 1950 and our wealth has increased substantially, claiming outsourcing hurts the domestic economy doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

You're not looking at the bigger picture. Like those 400 people recently layed off, there are thousands like them. That isn't good for economy no matter how you spin it.

The point is that this isn't happening. You can have a situation wherein 400 people are laid off and permanently end up on benefits, but it's certainly not the norm and, even if it were, clearly has no substantial negative effect.

Quote from: challengerX on January 29, 2015, 12:54:07 PM

You're not looking at the bigger picture. Like those 400 people recently layed off, there are thousands like them. That isn't good for economy no matter how you spin it.

The point is that this isn't happening. You can have a situation wherein 400 people are laid off and permanently end up on benefits, but it's certainly not the norm and, even if it were, clearly has no substantial negative effect.

I don't think Chally is talking about permanence, but there's certainly several weeks/months that these people need to cash in on their unemployment benefits before finding a new job.

need to cash in on their unemployment benefits before finding a new job.

So? About three million jobs are lost each year in the United States. However long a lot of people have to temporarily remain on the dole, it obviously isn't having a significant negative impact, especially not since we can see unemployment reach highs of 10pc and still recover.

Any amount of time on welfare is negative.

When you come up with an economy which means people can stay in the same job for their entire lives, let me know.

Produces the most value for who?

As if their interests are divergent. But if you want an answer, then the consumers.

Like I said, the Chinese made ball caps suck dick. The consumer is getting fucked.

None of what you're saying makes any sense in light of pretty much all the economic trends.