Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

Maybe an uncertain economic future…

What if the neoliberal global economic model put the local glazier out of work?

 

"an uncertain economic future" means that the investors must have some reason to believe that demand for glazing will not be enough in the future for them to make a return on their investment. Why do they think this? The way an investor operates is that he assesses the risk of the venture, contrasts it with the potential reward, and decides whether or not it's worth it. Considering they are investing their own money (and not someone else's like the Government), they are usually extremely careful and meticulous when making these decisions. So again, if the glazier is capable, and there was indeed a high amount of demand, why will no one give him a loan?

Also, I don't know what a neoliberal global economic model is, you'll have to elaborate

 

Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected

Is the glazier living in poverty AND/OR receiving welfare benefits?

 

Take a ride down many main streets in small town America and you’ll see evidence of the neoliberal global economic agenda…

Those main streets reveal an economy that used to be but is no more. You’ll see long abandoned mom and pop stores with broken windows and no glaizers to fix them. The local glaizers are out of business.

Here’s a good read on Neoliberalism.

 

neoliberal GLOBAL economic agenda?

That sounds like proof that government handouts are no substitute for competitive free markets and free enterprise, and Mom and Pops offspring have declined to continue running the business and instead have turned to vandalism breaking the windows. If the shops have been abandoned, the glaziers have probably moved to where they can sell their product.

 

There's no such thing as a free lunch or your theoretical free market (as Balbus pointed out).

No. The local glaizers are out of business. Go drive down smalltown main street USA and you'll see what I mean.

Oh, that's right you're one of those privleged internationalists who doesn't live here.

 

Yeah, that's great and all, must read well in your econ 210 textbook and whatnot, but the reality is, we have about 13 million people out of work. How many loans are you going to line up?

You free market types are HILARIOUS when you leave college. You either change your tune, or live in Mom's basement for the rest of your life, preaching about personal responsibility.

 

Since when has the actual capabilities of a tradesman been scrutinized during a loan application?

The same thing that's stopping it now.

 

See, in the mind of a libertarian, the glaiziers are out of business because Big Glass wasn't deregulated enough, and because the gubmint came in and shut him down.

Now all the glaizier has to do is somehow jump-start an entirely new business of his own, which the local depressed-economy town can't afford to patronize, and everything will be GREAT!

 

Why should there be a free lunch?

If there is no need for glaziers that's why they are out of business.

No, I don't live in the U.S. any longer, but I do have friends and relatives who still do. But I do live in a small town, actually a very small village, and you DID use the word 'global'.

But what's all this got to do with poverty and the spending on welfare? Is the glazier living in poverty, on welfare, or maybe working at another job?

 

Probably at least 13 million out of work, and no telling how many more millions who aren't even looking and aren't counted, but still need some means of support.

 

Who has defined a free market as lacking any regulations at all? In the same manner you could say that humans have never been and never will be free.

Actually the glazier could find employment elsewhere in the same business or some other business to make a living. Born into a small town, I had to leave and find work elsewhere as there just weren't enough jobs for the growing population after WWII ended, but jobs were available elsewhere. I just had to go look.

 

Or it could be that full employment is not a priority of government.

 

Employment should be a priority of each individual; it is not governments responsibility to provide jobs or income. All government can contribute is an environment conducive to those who create jobs based upon consumer demand to do so in a profitable way.

 

If government can contribute "an environment conducive to those who create jobs" why can't it also contribute an environment conducive to full employment (for everyone who wants a job, thereby helping your glazier out also)?

 

Since forever? You obviously have never applied for a business loan? Just to name a few things investors will typically scrutinize is: The viability of the business plan, the workers credit rating, experience he has in the field, any relevant education he's received, his appearance and demeanor, etc etc.... all of which point to his capabilities as a tradesman.

It's hard to have a discussion with people who lack even small amounts of common sense.

If the "local-depressed-economy" can't afford to patronize it, why can the city-council? I mean, any funds the city-council doles out must first be seized from that same "local-depressed-economy"...

Wouldn't businesses, voluntarily risking their own capital, be better able to judge whether or not they could afford the investment than city-council bureaucrats?

 

Yeah, business would be better able to "judge" that all the production jobs should go to Malaysia.

We've tried this route. It failed, several times.

 

Well.

Failed for many.

Succeeded for a few.

 

It could, and should, which would require motivating everyone who 'needs' a job to have to diligently seek one or rely on the charitable contributions others who are working to provide as they are willing. That would include the glazier, who may have to find another field of work where there is a demand for the product or service he is providing.

 

And you intend to motivate them by...