A Full Employment Program Would Be Beneficial for the United States

1) Weighing mechanism: I'll drop b.c. Pro won't be able to respond to a critique of utilitarianism. 3) Agent of Action: USFG. Pro doesn't want to debate incentives. This puts us in fantasy land where people do things just because it suits Pro. This is not only unrealistic, it is abusive, because Pro gets to decide who will automatically do what. I extend my earlier claim that the USFG is a counterproductive agent of action. If they were ever to implement this policy, it would be intentionally used to create dependence and buy votes. This army of welfare voters would entrench established interests even deeper. Pro also writes that even though the existing law for full employment failed, his program will succeed. Why? Pro says because his is a "program". Actually, the full employment law applies to the Federal Reserve, which is a program too. It doesn't work. As predicted, The Fed represents large banks and financial groups like Goldman Sachs [1]. === Pro Responses === 1) Reduction of Poverty Pro focuses on the time element here, claiming that initial losses will be offset by later gains. This is not my argument. My argument is that if corporations have to pay higher tax rates, their net revenues will decrease. Their net revenues will also increase from more consumer spending. Because the increase in consumer spending is exactly equal to the amount of taxes they have to pay, this policy will have no effect. Pro criticizes my analogy by attempting to show how absurd the reverse would be. Funnily, I actually made this observation right below my first paragraph in this sub point. If you taxed the poor, they would have less money to spend and business will suffer. But if the tax money goes to business owners, they will make the same profits selling the same volume as before. Pro's citation showing rich corporations posting record earnings is supposed to be evidence to the contrary. Pro doesn't know that we wouldn't be WORSE off without these corporations. Certainly there would be fewer jobs if they were going out of business... There are many many more arguments, but I don't have space to adequately tackle the whole financial crisis. Pro cites Denmark as having high levels of income equality and also high levels of happiness. Denmark is also racially homogeneous [2] because its borders are shut to third world countries. This is a rich whites-only club [3]. Also, they don't have a full employment program [4] (7% unemployment). 2) Boost to the Economy Pro cites the progressive income tax as proof that the poor would benefit from the wealth redistribution. I don't understand how this is a new point. I've been arguing under the robin-hood paradigm all along. 3) Creation of Competition Pro says the majority of businesses could simply raise their wages to compete with government jobs. He has no source for this. I don't understand how wal-mart is supposed to raise the wages of 2.1 million people, when they make 3 cents on the dollar [5]. I guess they could raise prices, but then that would hurt poor people... Pro says the reduced output of the private sector will be made up by the public sector. See 6). He also says that higher prices are okay if you have more money to spend. It's not if the additional money is exactly equal to the increase in prices. 4) Increase in standard of living Pro says "If people had money to spend on a proper diet than there obviously wouldn't be this problem.". Exactly. The US full employment program is not a humanitarian use of resources. The $350bn he wants to spend on Americans can be used to help many more people in near-death situations. They live in other countries. 5) Pro says the tax program is an even trade off, so there will be no effect on corporate earnings. This is a concession of what I've been arguing all along. Everyone will just break even. But I prefaced this point with "If they don't break even". In other words, if Pro actually could be successful in redistributing wealth, it would have negative effects on capital. Since he will at least have overhead, this will happen. 6) Public Sector Jobs A) Economic Calculation Pro writes that he doesn't know how the public sector would expand. He concludes that "more workers = more work getting done.". Is it useful work? What's the opportunity cost? Without market prices, he can't say. Resources, including human energy, is scarce. The state's allocation of capital will be totally arbitrary, becoming more divorced from reality as time passes on. Without prices, he can never know if there's something more efficient he could do. Without prices, he'll never know when he's losing money. B) Crowding Out I mean really. What would these workers be doing? There is no shortage of unskilled labor. The only "shortages" lefties complain about is health care, and people who can't get a job at minimum wage probably aren't the country's next doctors. He'll have to expand into industries where there is already sufficient employment and capital. So yes, private firms are competing with the public sector. Except the public sector has unlimited money and can never lose. It is on a mission to employ the unemployable. If firms compete by lowering prices, the public sector will also have to lower prices. Eventually the public sector will be running at a loss and the private sector will go bankrupt. Hmm. At best, his program would waste $350bn/year. More likely, it will create havoc in the market, discouraging new investment for fear of competing with the undying zombie shops propped up by Pro's full employment program. *** Voting Points *** 1) Reality Check Pro's been running his case like the USFG will automatically do what he tells it to do. i.e., incentives for government don't matter. But for some reason, incentives for the market do matter. Shenanigans. If he's allowed to play puppet with the government, why can't I do it with the market? "Yeah the market should give everyone jobs and free money and be nice". You all wouldn't buy it for a second. Pro obviously intended the resolution to be like this, but its still grossly unfair. Even if you don't buy the "Abuse" claim, he's still taken his plan completely out of reality. So no matter what, the real consequences of his plan will be drastically different from what he's claiming here. 2) I can out-lefty Pro The most humanitarian use of funds is to the least fortunate. A full employment program benefits Americans, but Americans are not the most needy. They reside in other countries. Pro doesn't answer my objections about malaria vaccines or vitamin deficiencies. If we're going to steal from the rich to give to the poor, let's save as many poor people as possible. 3) This is a Zero Sum Game So, if you steal from the rich to give to the poor only so the poor can give it back to the rich, you aren't doing anything. The increase in taxes on the rich will be directly equal to the increase in spending by the poor. So you won't be able to increase total sales of consumer goods. At best, Pro only succeeds in spreading the poverty since the same volume of goods is spread among more people. So this welfare is basically paid for by other poor people. Way to reinforce the cycle of poverty. Counter-intuitive? He hasn't changed capital structures at all. Go figure. In closing, seriously don't punish Pro for missing a round. I actually thank Pro for creating the new thread in order to extend his response – quoting me made it much easier to follow. Thanks Freedo for a good debate. I'll see you on the forums! [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.workpermit.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...