/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14255752]

Has anyone read this book? Is it any good?

[Anonymous No.14255814]

only retards like andrew y*ng

[Anonymous No.14255818]

UBI seems to be the answer to disappearing jobs, not a solution it.

[Anonymous No.14255828]

>>14255814
This

/lit/ is a Bernie board.

[Anonymous No.14255974]

>>14255828
God I hope not.

[Anonymous No.14255981]

Waaaah gib me free money.

[Anonymous No.14255985]

>>14255828
based

[Anonymous No.14255999]

>>14255974
It's not, but Yang is even more embarrassing than Bernie is. All the Democratic candidates seem to be playing a game of leap-frog to see who can get to the bottom fastest.

[Anonymous No.14256018]

>>14255752
I'm voting for Yang to accelerate the decline of America

[Anonymous No.14256021]

>>14256018
A vote for Bernie would do that faster.

[Anonymous No.14256035]

>>14255828
>Hilary Clinton's warmongering butt puppet is who you're voting for next election
vote for Adam Kokesh instead

[Anonymous No.14256049]

>Voting

Big cringe

[Anonymous No.14256094]

Yang repeats the same dozen talking points over and over ad nauseam. I've only read some of this book (one of my YangGang autist friends has it) but it really explores those same themes with more nuance and detail.

[Anonymous No.14256149]

[Anonymous No.14256180]

>everyone who runs for president puts out a book
hmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.14256188]

>>14255828
Lost all credibility after he cucked out in 2016.

[Anonymous No.14256190]

>>14256149
Wow, I thought were past this kind of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14256195]

>>14256180
They fucking should; that would make everything so much easier.

[Anonymous No.14256203]

>>14256149
Idiot. Yang may not get to be president, but he is far more successful than our current president.
Also Yang is a better speaker he has greater words than trump, some of the best words...
>>14256190
This

[Anonymous No.14256244]

>>14255828
/lit/ is a ted board, who cares about elections when we'll mailbomb the winner either way.

[Anonymous No.14256278]

>>14256244
based

[Anonymous No.14256303]

>>14256244
Thank you Ted dubs of truth

[Anonymous No.14256307]

>>14256035
T. Retard

[Anonymous No.14256311]

>>14255752
I'll never read his stupid book but I'll vote for him with my dick out and I'll cum so hard when he gives me my first check.

[Anonymous No.14256316]

>>14256307
that's where you're wrong

[Anonymous No.14256355]

>>14256244
this

[Anonymous No.14256356]

>guy literally has shrapnel buried in his fucking skull like Big Boss
>actual Harvard /lit/ professor and journalist who exposed sexcrimes
>publicly humiliates Bush Jr. and called the military out on its shit when they advocated for female combatants
>opponent tried to screw him with this but he wins the senate anyway
>tfw Commander Jim “Wrecking vagina in Indochina” Webb will never be Commander in Chief

Worst timeline

[Anonymous No.14256414]

>>14255752
nope lol

[Anonymous No.14256432]

I hope nobody on this board will be reading this book unless they have a strange sense of humor

[Anonymous No.14256479]

>>14256190
Is he no longer in favor of UBI?

[Anonymous No.14256483]

>>14256479
Lol'd. Good one.

[Anonymous No.14256493]

>>14256203
>he has greater words than trump
>some of the best words...
What causes this to happen? ESL? Autism? Retardation?

[Anonymous No.14256536]

>>14255818
Where is the metric for dissapearing jobs coming from? We have record unemployment currently.
Honestly someone give me an answer that isnt some case study of a particular profession. I work in robotics in an office of several thousand people designing robots that "take the jobs" away from chinks in their mega factories. Nobody Im involved with is worried about unemployment, we're more worried about how hard its gunna be to train niggers to maintain the machinery properly.

[Anonymous No.14256551]

>>14256536
>We have record unemployment currently.
Record lows.

[Anonymous No.14256608]

Unemployment is a good thing. It means we are so productive that there is no more work to do.

Prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.14256653]

>>14256035
Big fan of Kokesh, but Jacob Hornberger is a better presidential candidate if you want to back a Libertarian.

[Anonymous No.14256714]

>>14256653
>if you want to back a Libertarian.
And if you want to throw your vote away...

[Anonymous No.14256825]

>>14256714
This is the most jewish thing ive seen on /lit/ today, and theres multiple communist threads up right now.

[Anonymous No.14256876]

>>14256244
Based and Ted Pilled. /lit/ is strictly Uncle Ted.

[Anonymous No.14256883]

>>14256608
People need to be able to pay rent

[Anonymous No.14256892]

>>14256825
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.14256895]

It should be illegal for public figures to put out books that they didn't personally author themselves.

Fuck ghostwritten "manifestos" and "memoirs."

[Anonymous No.14256951]

>>14256608
that's literally what he supports. his $1000 a month is meant to help people survive without a job so they can do things

[Anonymous No.14256956]

AI removing jobs is the least worrisome thing about AI. We should be more worried about a malevolent super AI.

[Anonymous No.14257002]

>>14256892
Dialate

[Anonymous No.14257031]

>>14256951
If you just give people money it has no value, its just paper then. Value is derived from fulfilling a demand, with labor or a product. Giving money to people who dont work destroys value and causes inflation.

[Anonymous No.14257033]

>>14257031

inflation occurs when the money is being printed by the government. The money for the 1000 would come from taxes on businesses.

[Anonymous No.14257038]

>>14256951
>$1000 a month is enough to live off

[Anonymous No.14257040]

>>14257033
That isnt possible, even if you taxed every corporate entity in the fortune 500 at 100% you'd still be short cash.

[Anonymous No.14257051]

>>14255828
>>14256244
Based
Join Freedom Club now

[Anonymous No.14257097]

>>14257038
people get by for less

[Anonymous No.14257100]

>>14255828
Based

[Anonymous No.14257109]

>>14255752
LOL. No? I'd never read such a piece of sh*t. Socialism? No, thx, lol. We live in a free country, kid. If you wanna buy a house, go work for it. Why are libtards and lazy millennials so obsessed with me giving them money for free? lol

-Gary

[Anonymous No.14257142]

>>14257040
only with the current tax system. Introduction of a VAT would generate $800b-$1t/yr with a mere 10% rate (7% lower than the OECD average). The rest of the funding is generated from ending the bloated welfare system ($600b), ending current loopholes ($400b), economic stimulus due to UBI ($900b), and other savings.

[Anonymous No.14257145]

>>14257109
he describes himself as a capitalist.

[Anonymous No.14257157]

>>14255752
Basically
>AI is taking our jobs and we're fucked
It's a lowbrow read, because it needs to appeal to voters, but the guy has some right ideas.

[Anonymous No.14257190]

>>14257142
You need $330b per month minimum, from what youve listed youve only managed to cover 9 months not including management and distro costs.

[Anonymous No.14257201]

>>14257142
>>14257190
Also wtf do you calculate 'economic stimulus due to UBI'? You cant just hope 3months worth of funding is gunna come from the economy doing well on a wish.

[Anonymous No.14257207]

>>14257201
This is on top of the universal healthcare hes promising, which by the way, extends to illeagle aliens. Its all bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14257246]

>>14257145
>t. takes memes and mockery in general for serious
ok, retard

[Anonymous No.14257285]

>>14255752
I only read the first part to see what he said about me in his book.

>>14255828
cringe

>>14256244
very based

[Anonymous No.14257304]

>>14256021
well I'll vote for bernie and smuggle an illegal into the country to vote for yang
does that even it out?

[Anonymous No.14257432]

>>14257038
I live off of 9k a year nigger, not a NEET or anything I just put ~80% of my wage after taxes into savings. Shit's not hard if you make all your own food instead of spending $100 a week on chipotle and starbucks

fight me faggot

[Anonymous No.14257439]

>>14255828
So you replied to your own retarded berniepost 7 seven times to make it look like you mongoloids still matter

[Anonymous No.14257602]

>>14257246
shit meme though, only applies to bernfags

[Anonymous No.14258140]

>>14255828
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.14258429]

>>14255828
Based. /lit/ is ground zero for the revolution

[Anonymous No.14258544]

>>14256180
>Money gets donated to your PAC
>Get interns to wrIte book for you
>Have PAC buy 10mil copies of book from publisher for $1mil
>Donate them to yourself
>Sell books back to PAC for $11mil
>Pocket $10mil
>PAC sells books
>PAC gives money to whatever causes interest you, namely your senatorial re-election campaign
Reminder that every - EVERY - politican who runs for president while also currently or formerly holding office does this. Bernie did it and is doing it again, Cortez is doing it, Warren is doing it, Buttplug is doing it. Your gods are false, your priests are conmen and crooks, ans your beliefs are a sham by those who take advantage of you.

[Anonymous No.14258623]

one of whom is autistic

[Anonymous No.14258846]

>>14256536
Trucking is the most common job in all 50 states, self-driving cars will slash the demand for this profession. Similar things will happen to low level office clerks and most fast food workers in the next ten years probably. No US president is going to roll out UBI to help Chinese factory workers and I can't imagine why you thought that was the demographic and AMERICAN was worried about losing their jobs.

[Anonymous No.14258853]

>>14255828
Bernie will give all your money to Joe Biden if he things he's gonna lose.

[Anonymous No.14258929]

>>14256311
based coomer voter

[Anonymous No.14258942]

>>14255828
Based

[Anonymous No.14258965]

>>14256203
>Yang may not get to be president, but he is far more successful than our current president.
I think the one who became president is more successful than the one who can't.

[Anonymous No.14259021]

>le edgy take, politics bad, me smart
this truly is the pseud board

[Anonymous No.14259668]

>become president
>work with your party to pass legislation/use executive orders to ban automation of transportation (trucking, railroads, buses etc.)
>just saved millions of jobs with the stroke of a pen, now have a completely loyal economic sector to support you in your other policies
>"problem" solved
It's almost like Andrew Yang wants technological unemployment to happen because he's a disingenuous corporate whore who is buddies with big tech in Silicon Valley. Nothing is inevitable, especially not something (AI and automation) that can't move forward if it's illegal to implement.

[Anonymous No.14260201]

If this book was genuine and not some propaganda it should be applicable to the world rather than America only. Even the title is a bait, what does normal mean and why does it correlate with an inability to get a job. Is he claiming that people who get jobs are not normal?

[Anonymous No.14260370]

>>14255752
>>14255814
based
Yang and his teenage fans are fucking freaks.

[Anonymous No.14260388]

>>14260370
It's actually amazing to me that actual presidential candidates are able to gain traction by promising free money in the form of a check, like Yang, or in the form of debt elimination, like Sanders.

Have these people lost their minds?

[Anonymous No.14260442]

>>14255814
>only retards like anyone who isn't andrew yang

ftfy

[Anonymous No.14260826]

Maybe i'm a retard, but I don't see the point in electing a president that looks at short term solutions for long term problems. Wouldn't an extra 12k in every American's wallet lead to increases in rent, food, whatever else merchants can use it as justification for jacking up prices? Why not attack the problem that causes the need for an extra 12k?

[Anonymous No.14261198]

>>14260826
His job is to oversee the complete technological unemployment of America, he never intends to actually give anyone money he hates Americans lmao

[Anonymous No.14261205]

>>14260826
You are right Yang sucks

[Anonymous No.14261267]

[Anonymous No.14262003]

>>14258846
>this arguement again
Did you not read the part about not focusing on one profession? At one point farming was the most common profession but they didnt start handing out UBI's when they invented the tractor.
Even when self driving trucks are legalized the government will mandate a human body in the drivers seat. Those lifetime truckers might suffer if theyre forced out of their jobs but its not gunna cause societal collapse.
Nobody who worked menial labor is demanding more menial labor. When some pick-and-place activity gets automated people move on to a different activity not yet automated. People find other ways to earn a living by transitioning to different ways of making income. We are never going to run out of things for people to do.

[Anonymous No.14262022]

>reading a book written by a modern politician
you know damn well they're all cash grabs
>>14256244
based

[Anonymous No.14262147]

>>14255752
>"The War on Normal People"
>about a chink who wants to give free money to people who either refuse to work or aren't in the country, taken from said "normal people"
Technically, he's not wrong.

[Anonymous No.14262157]

>>14255828
/lit/ is an anarchist board. Fuck all (((politicians)))

[Anonymous No.14262434]

>>14260826
If a coffee stand raises their prices to 5$ because of UBI, I'd be more than happy to use my own UBI to start a coffee stand and sell it for 3$

[Anonymous No.14262587]

>>14256895
Retard

[Anonymous No.14262622]

>>14262022
you mean published under his name

[Anonymous No.14262824]

>>14255828
Based berniebro

[Anonymous No.14263680]

>>14256414
>Yin
kek

[Anonymous No.14263712]

>>14255818
Yes it's a relative laissez faire "answer" insofar as the job supply would be different obviously. Everyone having a guaranteed income should make work nominally more attractive since it increases workers bargaining position and decreases the supply of total shit jobs or makes them more economically expensive. It's also largly arbitrary like anything laissez faire and doomed to fail in the long run.
>>14257033
>inflation occurs when the money is being printed by the government
How do you explain the historically unprecedented increase in the money supply and relative minor inflation during this decade? Obviously the amount of money printed between 2008-2018 was much more than between say 1968-1978 but the inflation rates are totally different.
>The money for the 1000 would come from taxes on businesses.
Yang is essentially proposing taxing consumers. People with more income today would see a minor decrease in their real spending power and people with less today would see a increase. Taxing businesses means lower wages, lower investment or smaller returns to shareholders. You could just be more direct and tax wages, investment or capital gains which should be the case. Corporate taxes and consumption taxes are essiently flat and reactionary.
>>14257040
A big secret is cash isn't really a scarce resource. The government can spend all it wants but it can't fully control the effects.
>>14257142
>VAT
This is a really, really bad reactionary idea. There's a reason the goal of every right wing think tank is to shift the tax burden from income to consumption. Ultimately you'll pay a lot less in taxes nominally and consume a lot less real goods.
>>14257031
If I give you money it has value as long as other people want it. When you spend you increase the revenue of someone, they can use that revenue now to make themselves more productive or just pay themselves more. Inflation is just when spending is growing faster than the power to service the additional demand. A guaranteed income may or may not be inflationary depending on private decisions.
>>14262003
During the transition away from agriculture you also had large private investment in labour intensive industry and construction going on at the same time. There's no structural reason eliminating one job should create additional demand for more in the long run. People with money make those decisions and if they want to hoard commodities instead of invest they can. Also assuming government is going to mandate a certain type of employment in the future seems doubtful.

[Anonymous No.14263880]

>>14256188
Lost all credibility when he stood still and took it like a cuck when those BLM dindus invaded his stage

[Anonymous No.14263889]

>>14255828
based and berniepilled

[Anonymous No.14263955]

>>14256190
>>14256203
both of you should go to your sjw hidey-holes and stay there if you can't handle a bit of banter

[Anonymous No.14264073]

>>14255828
Tulsi is way more based

[Anonymous No.14264089]

Yang Gang

[Anonymous No.14264094]

>>14255752
>Mr. "Just-toss-some-money-at-them-and-maybe-they'll-go-away"

[Anonymous No.14264937]

>>14257285
damm would've doused these fucks in acid

[Anonymous No.14265237]

>>14255752
The issue is that until outsourcing and automation is dealt with any and all plans are going to have the ground swept out from under them.
UBI is a fine idea, but it doesn't solve the issue, only delay it.

[Anonymous No.14265251]

>>14255828
based

[Anonymous No.14265265]

>>14255828
Why not, he's better than the rest I guess.
Unfortunately Trump bungled the China thing and someone has to step in and run this trade war competently.

[Anonymous No.14265270]

>>14256149
I laughed

[Anonymous No.14265287]

>>14265237
>outsourcing
Foreigners wanting to give you cheap shit for monopoly money isn't a problem unless you're income depends on shit being expensive.

>automation
Not a problem for anyone except if you're income depends on what's being automated.

>UBI is a fine idea
It's a dumb monetarist idea.

>solve the issue
Only issue seems to be excess resources being created and no new utilization or supply magically creating demand.

>>14265265
You can only run a trade war incompetently. You intelligently exploit trade.

[Anonymous No.14265411]

>>14265287
The issue with outsourcing is multi faceted.
There is that is takes available jobs from the home nation and exports them into different nations. This is an employment issue more than a corporate issue. This results in a working class that isn't working anymore and have little chance to recover.
The other issue is that it strips industry from the home nation and exports that overseas. This is a nation defense issue as nations depend on their home industry to fight foreign powers. Service economies are fragile and weak as they only work when people can spend money to keep them rolling without any tangible goods coming out the other side.

Automation is an issue for employment. Things that are automated are things that people would otherwise be doing. This means that again there is a population of people that cannot work because their jobs no longer exist.

Automation + Outsourcing compound on each other to strip away a large number of employment opportunities. I personally view economies and nations as bottom-up affairs rather than top-down affairs so this is a large issue imo.

Allowing I assume private individuals control over the money supply and determining what people are payed and given is a terrible idea. The free market can be relied on for selling things to people, they're good at that. What they cannot be relied on is actually working to govern society in any long term or stable manner - look at the outcome of the British East India Company trying to control India as a great example of this. They fucked it up so bad the Crown had to step in and take over.

I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. If you are saying that there isn't enough demand to make companies pay more I would disagree. There is more demand than ever before, and workers are as skilled as ever or more so and pay is still stagnating. The allowances that private companies have been given are too generous and they need to have their chain tightened.

[Anonymous No.14265437]

Question. If the government can pull trillions of dollars out of its ass to pay for retarded wars or to bail out corrupt banks, why can't it give me $1000 neetbucks?

[Anonymous No.14265479]

>>14265411
>>14265287
>Only issue seems to be excess resources being created and no new utilization or supply magically creating demand.
I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. If you are saying that there isn't enough demand to make companies pay more I would disagree. There is more demand than ever before, and workers are as skilled as ever or more so and pay is still stagnating. The allowances that private companies have been given are too generous and they need to have their chain tightened.

My mistake, I meant to quote this.

[Anonymous No.14265485]

>>14255828
Very funny.

[Anonymous No.14265506]

>>14265485
Whats wrong with that?
Who better to critique a system than someone that succeeded inside it?
If he was poor you'd say that he was against capitalism because he was jealous of billionaires' success. There is no winning with you people.
Who is allowed to be against your system?

[Anonymous No.14265706]

>>14265411
>There is that is takes available jobs from the home nation and exports them into different nations
Is the job supply fixed or infinite? Are we really running out of things to do?

>The other issue is that it strips industry from the home nation and exports that overseas. This is a nation defense issue as nations depend on their home industry to fight foreign powers.
Actually read into the history of national defence, specifically WWII. Overnight the government basically totally redirected the national output and prevented inflation. If a serious threat emerges you can get things going pretty rapidly.

>Things that are automated are things that people would otherwise be doing.
Yes, it increases leisure if there's notting new to do. If everything's automated everything's practically free but we're nowhere near there.

>Allowing I assume private individuals control over the money supply and determining what people are payed and given is a terrible idea.
The money supply and wage rate [beyond a floor] is largly privately controlled already. Private banks create money by extending loans and companies decide how much they pay employees.

>I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. If you are saying that there isn't enough demand to make companies pay more I would disagree. There is more demand than ever before, and workers are as skilled as ever or more so and pay is still stagnating. The allowances that private companies have been given are too generous and they need to have their chain tightened.
I'm saying supply doesn't seem to really create demand. More unemployed doesn't create more investment to employ them. There may be real demand but the aggregate demand's not there. Strange if wants are supposedly infinite.

[Anonymous No.14265804]

>>14265706
I would say that at any given moment there is a finite supply of jobs. It can grow sure, but there are only a certain amount at any point in time. We are kind of running out of things for people to do. A factory that employed 3000 people building cars is now gone and those 3k now have to find things to do. When its less 3000 and more a few million you're gonna rapidly run out of things for these people to do.

The WWII scenario worked because all that industry was here. It didn't produce munitions, but it made things that were easily converted into them. This is different than the factories themselves not being in American borders. That limits what can be mobilized and utilized by the state in a time of war.

As for automation. Exactly we are nowhere there. There is a dearth of jobs for a large portion of people. There is a large population of men and women that aren't smart or ambitious. They want a brainless 9-5 that they can forget about and go home from every day. Automation puts these people out on the street as they are competing against each other and more qualified people and are found lacking. Unless something is done for these people you are going to encounter great unrest and instability.

I personally abhor private banks and believe that they are a policy mistake. Regardless, banks are currently allowed to control money supply under the allowance of the government and ultimately are controlled by it. What I got from your reply was that the money supply should be entirely given to private parties, which I disagree with totally.

Demand is not infinite, I never said that. It is higher than ever but not infinite. Its low enough that companies can prioritize profits from efficiency over just trying to fulfill all the demand.

[Anonymous No.14265867]

>>14265804
>I would say that at any given moment there is a finite supply of jobs
Orthodox theory says otherwise and can't explain the issue.

>The WWII scenario worked because all that industry was here.
All that industrial capacity still is.

>As for automation. Exactly we are nowhere there. There is a dearth of jobs for a large portion of people. There is a large population of men and women that aren't smart or ambitious. They want a brainless 9-5 that they can forget about and go home from every day. Automation puts these people out on the street as they are competing against each other and more qualified people and are found lacking. Unless something is done for these people you are going to encounter great unrest and instability.
Is there really notting to be done or is there another issue.

>Demand is not infinite
Real demand is but not actual aggregate demand.

[Anonymous No.14265981]

>>14265867
Economic Theories are useful for teaching people the basics, but their actually utility is pretty low overall in reality. Bits and pieces from every school of thought (even one as bad as the Austrians) are useful, but no single one is comprehensive enough or accurate enough at large to be relied upon.
In this case I and the orthodox school disagree, take whichever side you want I guess. I do not agree with some idea of infinite amount of jobs at any one point in time. Or ever. As long as resources are finite then both labor and capital are going to be finite as well.

The industrial capacity is here, but the tools to utilize it aren't. Factories aren't cheap, nor quick to build and in a time of war being able build more faster than the enemy is a necessity.

I would say the 'other issue' is a lack of intervention to support these people. I would point to the civilian employment programs under FDR as a great example of how to alleviate the issue.

I don't believe there is a disagreement between us when it comes to demand.

[Anonymous No.14266394]

>>14265981
>As long as resources are finite then both labor and capital are going to be finite as well.
No one claimed otherwise, the issue is demand and distribution. The claim is usually individual wants are infinite and property/markets are a solution to distribute resources in a manner to fulfil social wants in the most cost effective manner. Obviously the amount of real purchasing power and ability to command labour may be very rigid but the real wants must be there.

>The industrial capacity is here, but the tools to utilize it aren't. Factories aren't cheap, nor quick to build and in a time of war being able build more faster than the enemy is a necessity.
The productive capacity to meet the demand and "tools" exist in relative abundance for purposes of national defence still. Outsourcing effected industries producing consumer goods (which are largly luxuries anyhow) the most and they would require rationing and certain controls under a breakdown in international trade probably. There's notting "necessary" about toys but people want them and cheap, the only reason people work producing them is to get the resources to get those cheap toys.

[Anonymous No.14266521]

>>14266394
The wants you are discussing are there, but the thing is that at this point companies have enough capital on hand to avoid hiring native workers quickly and instead either invest in outsourcing programs or automation. They are working to fulfill that demand and the demand is infinite, but they've developed to the point of being able to find different ways to fulfill it rather than work with domestic labor.

Its not what they are producing that is the problem, nor is there necessarily a problem atm. What there is is a potential problem in the future. Factories are not terribly hard to repurpose as history shows, but they need to exist in the first place to be repurposed. Additionally the factories still on US soil are decreasing overtime as companies work to avoid taxation by being located elsewhere and outsource labor.
The way around this would be to tighten regulations on both taxation and on outsourcing greatly.

[Anonymous No.14266620]

>>14256035
lmaooo i used to feel up his sister behind our middle school

[Anonymous No.14266627]

>>14266521
>The wants you are discussing are there, but the thing is that at this point companies have enough capital on hand to avoid hiring native workers quickly and instead either invest in outsourcing programs or automation. They are working to fulfill that demand and the demand is infinite, but they've developed to the point of being able to find different ways to fulfill it rather than work with domestic labor.
You're again assuming a fixed supply of work that's being rationed globally which may be the case but intellectually isn't respectable and certainly is strange since there's so much that could be done but isn't being done.

>Additionally the factories still on US soil are decreasing overtime as companies work to avoid taxation by being located elsewhere and outsource labor
Industrial output has continuously increased in America. This is just a fact, it doesn't matter if even more people are making consumer electronics in Asia. More people work in manufacturing in America today than ever before even though it employs a relative smaller amount of the population (which is bigger).

[Anonymous No.14266644]

>>14256551
all you need is 1 hour per week to be counted as employed. Doesn't take into account how many part time and full time employees live at or below the poverty line. Also almost no high school diploma accessible jobs will give healthcare or any benefits at all, while also paying 7.50/hr. If u actually think headline unemployment is a good economic indicator neck yourself.

[Anonymous No.14266697]

>>14256244
based
.44 the last dubs you will ever need

[Anonymous No.14266729]

>>14260826
That's not how the market works though. Want to jack up prices? Go ahead, cause that merchant across the street is keeping prices the same so I'll go to him instead. Have fun with a dying business.

[Anonymous No.14266743]

/lit/ is a reaganite board

[Anonymous No.14266750]

>>14255752
>cut all welfare for 1000 dollars

[Anonymous No.14266770]

>>14264094
he wants to disarm them first

[Anonymous No.14266774]

>>14266750
>everyone uses the 1000 dollars to buy buttcoins and aggregate spending on real goods and services plummets into recession as shops close down

[Anonymous No.14266946]

>>14266627
I assume that there is a certain supply of people that are willing to spend money on paying for work to happen. There are only so many people that could pay for factories or any other method of production. And these people only have so much money.
No system is going to be 100% efficient. There is going to be a lot of work and production that isn't happening regardless of if it should just due to how things work.

Pure volume of factor amount is important as well when it comes to war efforts as well as what those domestic factories are making atm.

[Anonymous No.14267064]

>>14266946
>willing to spend money on paying for work to happen
>retard who rhinks its someones money
its literally bank money that was printed out of thin air

[Anonymous No.14268040]

Curtis Yarvin.png

>>14255828
This is not the case, /lit/ is a clear pill board, truely neutral in every aspect.

[Anonymous No.14269269]

>>14256190
youre on 4chan shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.14269835]

>>14266946
Yes there's only ever really so much spending going on at a time because of budget constraints and distribution.

>>14267064
Perhaps but banks will only take on risk for perceived credit worthy borrowers who want to spend. It doesn't matter if it's from "thin air" or the ground.

[Anonymous No.14270451]

>>14264073
No she's not