This will make you scratch your head...

you wouldn't be paying yourself because someone else would be paying you. you are not paying someone else to raise their own kid. Person A pays person B to take care of person A's child and person B pays person A to take care of person B's child. This way person A and person B can tell the government they are employed and hence can not be taken off welfare.

I missed this one earlier. I might be mistaken but employed people don't usually get welfare. They may get assistance, like "food stamps" to help them out, but they aren't getting a check to pay the rent.

I took two economics courses in high school, as well as macro and micro economics and consumer behavior in college. The most basic thing is economics is the point that, "there is no free lunch." Someone has to pay for it. Even in socialism there must be a means to generate revenue. This could be from exporting natural resources, producing goods, offering services. Even the former Soviet Union, China and Cuba have to generate revenue. Usually from exports.

Few if any economies are capitalist or socialist. Most are a mixture of the two. I think a good example is here in the United States we are predominately capitalist, with socialism as a safety net - social security (for people unable to work), unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare, etc.

If you look at countries like China where the Communist government controls the government, they still have private Chinese companies that are traded on their stock exchanges, they loan money, especially to us and many of the Chinese citizens are employed by private corporations.
 
Milton, I would recommend you read the "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith and the "The Communist Manifesto," by Karl Marx. Smith's book is the heart of capitalism and Marx's book is heart of socialism (socialists tend to believe in socialism with a goal leading to communism, but not in all cases.)

The bottom line is that both systems have flaws in them. That why most economies of today have a mixture of both, some leaning more to one side than the other.

I strong believer in balance. Too much of a good thing is not good.

Communists and socialists tend to preach a single class message, everyone deserves the same share, unlike a rich, middle class and poor system. Even in communism and socialism, those in positions of power still get more and better stuff than the regular class. Even in a capitalists system people may have more or less than the other person, but usually its better for you to have less than your neighbor than for everyone to have nothing.
 
i understand it doesn't ultimately get them off welfare, but it provides them with a way to have a job so the government can't kick you off welfare after a certain period of time because you have no job. in other words, the whole "welfare reform" of the bill clinton years can be challenged by the simple example i have laid out.

1. The Bill Clinton reform was for a set number of years. I don't believe whether they are employed or not has anything to do with it. You get help for so long, then you need to look elsewhere.

2. Employment tends to mean working for a business or individual and they have whats called an EIN (Employer Idenfication Number) is a business/organization equivalent to a social security number. If you are hiring someone you need to filing paper work upon hiring and every year with your EIN as the employer and their SSN. Plus, you need to take taxes out and on behalf of the government, plus you have to pay a portion of their social security taxes (FICA) to the government out of your own pocket. Based on your hirings and firings you usually have pay the state with unemployment insurance. All of that equals employment. Anything else is not going to be seen as employment by the government. Besides that the employer needs to have money coming in from somewhere to pay the employee. If use their example and say they have money from somewhere, chances are they don't need welfare or the government doesn't believe they are entitled to it.


------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure what your motivation is here. I recognize that people are hurting financially. I happen to be one of them, and I'm not eligible for welfare or unemployment, but I'm fortunate to have a good family support system and nice basement in my parents house to crash in. I also consider myself to be rather capable and as things improve, I will as well. It's been a tough year and a half, but I'm optimistic.
 
Bendover:

First, mothers raising children are generating revenue in a longterm perspective because they are doing the fundamentally important work of making sure the human species continues to exist.

Second, your talk about incentives can be turned around on you. For example, maybe someone feels like they are being given an incentive to have a child if they can get access to welfare and other forms of government help. Maybe they feel like they are engaging in unpaid labor if they are not compensated for doing the revenue generating, human species maintaining task of giving birth to and raising children.

Third, employed people can get welfare.

Fourth, I have read Adam Smith and Karl Marx. You should read In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell and The Abolition of Work by Bob Black.

Fifth, I understand the Bill Clinton welfare act. But my example is trying to say that there is something wrong with the act and people's general perception of welfare. If the government doesn't consider my proposal work, then i suggest we broaden our horizons instead of living in outdated partriarchal tyrannies.
 
Bendover:

First, mothers raising children are generating revenue in a longterm perspective because they are doing the fundamentally important work of making sure the human species continues to exist.

How are they generating revenue in the long term perspective? Generating revenue means getting money. You work or sell things to get money. If someone just gives you money that would be generating revenue as well, but if the government stops giving you money, you're fucked. If they are working and raising their kids they are generating money by working. If they own a business and are raising their kids they are not generating revenue.

By not working or earning they are generating revenue in the long term. When they go to work they are generating income. Staying home may save the family money, but it's not generating income.

Are you on fucking drugs?
 
How are they generating revenue in the long term perspective? Generating revenue means getting money. You work or sell things to get money. If someone just gives you money that would be generating revenue as well, but if the government stops giving you money, you're fucked. If they are working and raising their kids they are generating money by working. If they own a business and are raising their kids they are not generating revenue.

By not working or earning they are generating revenue in the long term. When they go to work they are generating income. Staying home may save the family money, but it's not generating income.

Are you on fucking drugs?

calm down sparky. it's simple. woman make baby. woman raise baby. baby grow up to be zombie consumer/worker who pumps money through the economy. the end.
 
Bendover:

First, mothers raising children are generating revenue in a longterm perspective because they are doing the fundamentally important work of making sure the human species continues to exist.

Second, your talk about incentives can be turned around on you. For example, maybe someone feels like they are being given an incentive to have a child if they can get access to welfare and other forms of government help. Maybe they feel like they are engaging in unpaid labor if they are not compensated for doing the revenue generating, human species maintaining task of giving birth to and raising children.

Third, employed people can get welfare.

Fourth, I have read Adam Smith and Karl Marx. You should read In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell and The Abolition of Work by Bob Black.

Fifth, I understand the Bill Clinton welfare act. But my example is trying to say that there is something wrong with the act and people's general perception of welfare. If the government doesn't consider my proposal work, then i suggest we broaden our horizons instead of living in outdated partriarchal tyrannies.

As to your second point, giving an incentive to have a child to get welfare, why as a society would we want to do that? As I said before, it is understood in economics that, "there is no such thing as a free lunch." Someone has to pay for it. In our society and most of the world it is the belief that parents are responsible to care for their own children. That is why we have child support for unmarried couples. In some cases I've heard of the state going after fathers to recoup money they have spent on welfare payments to single mother. Oddly enough it happened to an uncle of mine. I have no idea if actually had to pay anything or not.

As to your fifth point, what you are proposing would either be classified as barter or contracting, depending on if money is exchanged or services, but it not employment - from a government standpoint or textbook one.

As to your third point, depending on your state, it maybe possible for people to get welfare, depending on how much they earn. If you are classifying "food stamps" and WIC as welfare, you are absolutely correct.

As to your first point, in a fiat or paper money economy, which almost the entire world lives, continuing the human species is not contributing towards generating revenue in short, near or long term unless they are selling their children.

we have an expectation that the human race will continue. That expectation is not usually an economic one, like with pigs or cattle. It is a social one, a biological one and for some a spiritual one. For those that would have children for an economic reason, for the sake of a government check or getting a check from a lover, that is morally wrong. I don't understand how you could encourage a system where the government would pay people to support them and their children, especially in a time when we are having enough problems the way it is.

How about this scenario. What if Mother 1 and mother 2 each made items for sales, or started service businesses where they cleaned peoples homes and business, maybe they watched other people's children and started a daycare service and found a way to make it cheaper for the parents than other alternatives, saving these people money, making a living for themselves and paying taxes to the government.

Which as better for them and everyone: welfare or work/business? I think the work/business adds, the welfare does not generate anything.

As to unpaid labor, we all do unpaid labor for our families, our community, to churches and even to individuals. It doesn't take away the need to be able supports oneself.

Even if we did your idea and gave larger portions of the population welfare, for much longer periods of time, how are we going to support it. There are people in Europe that are wealthy and have moved to other European countries to pay less in taxes. If you get most of your taxes from a few and they leave and take their wealth with them, or simple earn all future amounts of money in another country, you are stuck.

Welfare is a fine idea to help get people through tough times, but it can't be a long term option for sizable portions of the population. When I say sizable I'm talking about 5%, 10% or more.

You may need to educate me on patriarchal tyrannies. There is no one forcing you to do anything. Just because those in power don't give you something doesn't make it a tyranny. We have a federal government that has a division of powers, offices that are elected every two, four or six years, appoints that are temporary, except for the supreme, and anyone of them can be removed from office for misuse of their power. Bush is no longer in office, his term ended and with it his power. Actually his real power ended when the Democrats gained control of congress. I live in a state where our governor was just impeached for allegedly trying to sell President Obama's former seat in the Senate.

I don't know where you are from, but if you live in North America or Europe, you have all sorts of civil liberties. Even people with little or no wealth lead better lives and have more freedoms than kings did many years ago.

In all reality, nobody owes you or me or anyone else anything in this world, than to not be physically harmed.

It's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't mean the government or society is entitle to feed and clothe you, but it does mean that it should not stand in your way in your pursuit of such things.

I will seek out the two texts you have mentioned. I will add that business activities, producing media and creating things may not be classified as work, but they can be revenue generating activities as well.

In your post, you never did mention your motivation for this thread.
 
calm down sparky. it's simple. woman make baby. woman raise baby. baby grow up to be zombie consumer/worker who pumps money through the economy. the end.

They are still not generating revenue even in that scenario. Their children, when they grow older and are contributing to the economy. That's like saying the children are contributing. Just because you consume doesn't me you are contributing. People who consume that free lunch, while someone else are paying for it are not contributing to growing the economy. At least not at that moment.
 
Are you on fucking drugs?

I don't think he's on drugs, but I think he has a very unrealistic view on how the world operates and how it should.

I'm going to show what kind of a geek I am, but even in content that has a communist tone to them, think Smurf village on the Smurfs or Star Trek, people have jobs and missions and they are expected to perform a service, even the ones that have children.
 
As to your second point, giving an incentive to have a child to get welfare, why as a society would we want to do that? As I said before, it is understood in economics that, "there is no such thing as a free lunch." Someone has to pay for it. In our society and most of the world it is the belief that parents are responsible to care for their own children. That is why we have child support for unmarried couples. In some cases I've heard of the state going after fathers to recoup money they have spent on welfare payments to single mother. Oddly enough it happened to an uncle of mine. I have no idea if actually had to pay anything or not.

As to your fifth point, what you are proposing would either be classified as barter or contracting, depending on if money is exchanged or services, but it not employment - from a government standpoint or textbook one.

As to your third point, depending on your state, it maybe possible for people to get welfare, depending on how much they earn. If you are classifying "food stamps" and WIC as welfare, you are absolutely correct.

As to your first point, in a fiat or paper money economy, which almost the entire world lives, continuing the human species is not contributing towards generating revenue in short, near or long term unless they are selling their children.

we have an expectation that the human race will continue. That expectation is not usually an economic one, like with pigs or cattle. It is a social one, a biological one and for some a spiritual one. For those that would have children for an economic reason, for the sake of a government check or getting a check from a lover, that is morally wrong. I don't understand how you could encourage a system where the government would pay people to support them and their children, especially in a time when we are having enough problems the way it is.

How about this scenario. What if Mother 1 and mother 2 each made items for sales, or started service businesses where they cleaned peoples homes and business, maybe they watched other people's children and started a daycare service and found a way to make it cheaper for the parents than other alternatives, saving these people money, making a living for themselves and paying taxes to the government.

Which as better for them and everyone: welfare or work/business? I think the work/business adds, the welfare does not generate anything.

As to unpaid labor, we all do unpaid labor for our families, our community, to churches and even to individuals. It doesn't take away the need to be able supports oneself.

Even if we did your idea and gave larger portions of the population welfare, for much longer periods of time, how are we going to support it. There are people in Europe that are wealthy and have moved to other European countries to pay less in taxes. If you get most of your taxes from a few and they leave and take their wealth with them, or simple earn all future amounts of money in another country, you are stuck.

Welfare is a fine idea to help get people through tough times, but it can't be a long term option for sizable portions of the population. When I say sizable I'm talking about 5%, 10% or more.

You may need to educate me on patriarchal tyrannies. There is no one forcing you to do anything. Just because those in power don't give you something doesn't make it a tyranny. We have a federal government that has a division of powers, offices that are elected every two, four or six years, appoints that are temporary, except for the supreme, and anyone of them can be removed from office for misuse of their power. Bush is no longer in office, his term ended and with it his power. Actually his real power ended when the Democrats gained control of congress. I live in a state where our governor was just impeached for allegedly trying to sell President Obama's former seat in the Senate.

I don't know where you are from, but if you live in North America or Europe, you have all sorts of civil liberties. Even people with little or no wealth lead better lives and have more freedoms than kings did many years ago.

In all reality, nobody owes you or me or anyone else anything in this world, than to not be physically harmed.

It's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't mean the government or society is entitle to feed and clothe you, but it does mean that it should not stand in your way in your pursuit of such things.

I will seek out the two texts you have mentioned. I will add that business activities, producing media and creating things may not be classified as work, but they can be revenue generating activities as well.

In your post, you never did mention your motivation for this thread.

Dude, please stop quoting me shit from economics textbooks. Try reading dissident economists like Steve Keen or dozens of others in the 20th century who have debunked economics. Just because you said you took a couple courses doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.

If you are confused as to the nature of patriarchal tyrannies, i suggest you read some feminist philosophy and history. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale by Maria Mies would be a good place to start, although there are hundreds of women equally intelligent and important who have written feminist books.
 
Their children, when they grow older and are contributing to the economy.

Exactly. And how do the children grow older and get to the point where they could contribute to the economy? Through the unpaid labor of mothers. Not only is the labor unpaid, people don't even want to help them with welfare benefits if the "time-limit" has expired as with the clinton legislation.
 
Dude, please stop quoting me shit from economics textbooks. Try reading dissident economists like Steve Keen or dozens of others in the 20th century who have debunked economics. Just because you said you took a couple courses doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.

If you are confused as to the nature of patriarchal tyrannies, i suggest you read some feminist philosophy and history. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale by Maria Mies would be a good place to start, although there are hundreds of women equally intelligent and important who have written feminist books.
Just so I understand, Milton. Do you consider yourself to be a radical? Nothing wrong with that, necessarily. It health to have debates on belief systems. If so, radicals do not tend to agree with most people or traditional thought. That's why it's called radical.

You can't expect people to embrace it, especially if you call them names.
 
exactly. but why argue with him... this is the "battered and assaulted' guy from about 3 weeks ago... no point in arguing with him. like talking to a wall (well a bit funnier, when he gets upset, but pointless nonetheless)

I'm new to the forum and its taken me an evening and being called a Nazi to figure that out.
 
Just so I understand, Milton. Do you consider yourself to be a radical? Nothing wrong with that, necessarily. It health to have debates on belief systems. If so, radicals do not tend to agree with most people or traditional thought. That's why it's called radical.

You can't expect people to embrace it, especially if you call them names.

I lost faith in humanity, god and nature a long time ago. I don't expect anyone to embrace anything. The only thing i expect is to die at any given second given the nihilistic nature of existence. Figure it out yourself.
 
I lost faith in humanity, god and nature a long time ago. I don't expect anyone to embrace anything. The only thing i expect is to die at any given second given the nihilistic nature of existence. Figure it out yourself.

I don't expect anyone to have faith in anything, but your language sounds troubling. I hope you find things in life that make you happy, because no one should be depressed or see the world around them as hopeless. Life does tend to suck, but its worth for those good moments that come around.
 
Top