: The market doesnt fail to provide for the poor. it doesnt provide for anyone *sigh* economics is about ensuring the cirulation and supply of the means of living to the members of society. The market fails to achieve that.
: People have to provide for themselves. the market only efficiently allocates resources.
No, the market *inefficiently* allocates resources, on the basis of effective demand, rather than on need. the dreaded Law of 'no-profit no production' means that allocation can only be in the direct interest of a small number of capital holders.
: If you produce $20.00 worth of goods or services you are paid that amount so that you can purchase $20.00 worth of goods or services that you wish to consume.
Wrong. I am paid the value of my skills on the open market, irrespective of the value of the goods I produce. If my skills are worth $5 dollars, and the thing I make is worth $20 (and total other production costs are a further 45) then my boss takes $10 profit, without working.
:The market is fair in this sense however it may not square with our sense of social justice.
Isn't that *exactly* what I ahve been saying? buh?
: This why there are progressive taxes and other forms of wealth redistribution. Politicians have decided they will correct the so called social inequalities of the market by extracting income from those that have produced it and giving it to those who have not. This causes most of the crises in the market not the market itself.
No, Market crises are not caused by political interference (and btw- most welfare actually goes to those who produce wealth, capitalists don't produce wealth, the workers do). The market is crisis prone to 'overproduction' (i.e. effective demand is exceded, so production and sales must be cut back in order to protect profits.). Crises happen in spite of politicians, not because of them- Laissez faire England in teh 19th C. is the proof of that.
: When resources are misallocated through gov't programs they are used inefficently thereby acting as a drag on the economy as a whole.
No, I think we are better off abolishing the market (and government) once and for all, and co-opratively producing for needs under a system of abundance.
: Don't start using children to peddle your socialist dogma. Use ideas not propaganda. Having children is a choice. Lay the blame where it belongs.
Not if contraception fails and you're too poor to access abortion clinics. The fact remains those mothers are in poverty, and their children, through no choice of their own, are in poverty, and the market system is the cause.
: Its an interesting coincindence that the countries with the most generous unemployment benefits have the highest rate of unemployment.
Never noticed that one- got a suorce? In the 60's most countries had generous unemployement benefits, and full employement (in fact, the trend is more towards full employement and generous benefits, benefits fall when tehre is high unemployement).
: Your welfare state has destroyed you economy not the market. your blaming the wrong thing.
Actually, no, I'm afraid the declining rate of profit, the oil crisis of '73, and an ongoing crisis in the economy are nothing to do with welfare. Strangely, welfare is cut here, and unemplotyment remains high, ditto the US. We are looking at structural problems here.
: As for falling wages in the U.S. when you consider healthcare benefits and other non wage compensation wages have not declined unless of course you factor in the highest taxes as a percentage of GDP in history. Again you are blaming the wrong thing.
Do the poorest pay those high taxes? Can the poorest access the health care system? Why have wages fallen? isn't a decline in wages a bad thing?
: P.S. what does Buh mean?
Its that noise you make when your mouth pops open, and your eyes glaze blankly over in un-utterable incomprehension....
