CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I have to pass a drug test to work. I hate work. I wish I could get money for doing nothing. If I have to pass a drug test, to have the honor of working, people should have to pass a drug test, if they want free money.
Like a lot of folks in this state I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?????
You could save money, by giving random drug test, once a year.
It doesn't cost that much money to give drug test.
People who REALLY need help, will stop drugs. This will help their life.
In Japan, they have a major anti-drug policy and that negated their crime rates to less than three percent of America's! Drugs are a huge deal and the problems is causes are endless... the government should crack down harder on druggies because it's stupid to waste money on people who sit around doing nothing but waiting for the welfare check to arrive in the mail so they can get their next fix. I don't think it should be very sudden though; a lot of drug addicts now could use help and a couple are definitely innocent (and stupid) victims. I think they should ease into the law gradually, by forcing bigger fines for drug dealers, having a huge anti-drug campaign; fining drug addicts themselves...
the government should crack down harder on druggies
For over 50 years the government has been cracking down on drugs and it hasn't done an ounce of good. Why do people insist on perpetuating policies which clearly do not work?
Implementing a mandatory drug tests costs money, about $35 per person, and there are roughly 30 million Americans on some sort of welfare. That's over 1 billion in tax dollars. It would be a colossal waste of money. And what exactly does it accomplish? It means some person won't be able to pay their rent or grocery bill just because they like getting high.
I KNOW we can find better things to do with 1 billion dollars than preventing stoners from paying rent. This is the epitome of idiocy. I'm not concerned with what someone puts in their own body and I don't think the Government should be either.
If welfare is subsidizing stoner's drug habits then it isn't helping anybody and is already a colossal waist of money. Think how much the government could save if it wasn't giving money to people who spent it on drugs, billions.
As opposed to the money spent on the drug war? I'd argue that they're closer than you make it seem.
Also, the drug war has been a political nightmare, putting tens of thousands in jail, ruining the chances of millions through various offences, and has little to no scientific basis (this is talking about weed, as most drugs users are doing weed.
Then think of the welfare system, which gives money necessary for food, clothes, and water, to those who have nothing.
As a purely academic question, the answer is Heck yes! As a practicality the idea is a huge FAIL. It would be nice to expect some personal responsibility in those who are living off of those in society who are working and paying the bills, but there is no constitutional or fair way to do that.
1. It's unconstitutional. If the government does not have good reason to believe that an individual has taken an illegal drug, this would constitute an unreasonable search.
2. Implementing a mandatory drug tests costs money, about $35 per person, and there are roughly 30 million Americans on some sort of welfare. That's over 1 billion in tax dollars. I KNOW we can find better things to do with 1 billion dollars than preventing stoners from paying rent.
3. It would increase poverty, due to those who failed the test or decided not to take it as a result of the Drug testing. All the social problems associated with poverty, such as crime, would also increase.
4. What someone puts into their own body should be their business and their business alone.
I find what you say somewhat true, but we're talking about people who want government assistance.
If you want a license, you must provide personal information. The people who want government assistance may be willing to give up their personal freedom in the case of drug testing. After all, they could just NOT receive government assistance if they find drug use more important.
Don't get me wrong, I am for complete legalization. But in the current state we're in, the government finds that illegal activity should take away any right to welfare and such.
This is True, but if someone really needs welfare then they don't really have much of a choice, either they get thrown onto the streets to struggle with hunger or the government assumes they're a criminal by drug testing them without probable cause. This also has repercussions for the rest of society in terms of cost in implementing these drug tests, and in poverty should this person fail the test or not try at all. If someone's life is so ruined by drug addiction that they need welfare but can't pass a simple test even when they know in advanced when it's going to be, this person needs medical help, not to have their income taken away, that only makes things worse.
A license, a job, any of these things that you need to show that you haven't broken the law, it's all for something more than you need. If you don't get a job, you get benefits. What do you do if you can't get benefits?
The government has to accept that some people will break the law, and they still need help. It would go against the very idea of benefits, that everyone is deserving of some form of last resort support. It's not going to happen, even with most governments stance on drugs.
Its not unconstitutional. The government does have a good reason to believe the person has taken an illegal drug. The only people who are required to take the test are those who lost their job because of failing or refusing to take a drug test, and are now on welfare.
"It would increase poverty, due to those who failed the test or decided not to take it as a result of the Drug testing. All the social problems associated with poverty, such as crime, would also increase.”
It could increase poverty, but it could decrease the amount of people on illegal drugs, and crimes associated with drugs could also be alleviated.
"Implementing a mandatory drug tests costs money, about $35 per person, and there are roughly 30 million Americans on some sort of welfare. That's over 1 billion in tax dollars. I KNOW we can find better things to do with 1 billion dollars than preventing stoners from paying rent.”
This will stop tax payers from paying for drugs. What i mean is, people on drugs are using food stamps so they can have both drugs and food, allowing tax payers to effectively pay for their drugs. Stoping people from having welfare while on drugs can help stop tax payers from doing this accidentally.
“What someone puts into their own body should be their business and their business alone.”
This would not help those that need help. Through the death penalty, for example, there have been studies that show that such an extreme punishment does little to prevent the crimes being committed. This would give a similar effect.
Despite people knowing that they would not get benefits, they would continue to do drugs. And then you would have tens of thousands of people with no job and no benefits, hardly what anyone wants.
The way to reduce the drug culture anywhere is through cutting off supply, social changes, and support for those who wish to get off drugs, as three main parts, there are obviously more.
I live in a country where the use of any drugs can get your deported, dealing can get you tortured, and yet people continue to do so. Punishment is not the way to solve a problem, you have to get to the root of it.
The easiest way is just eliminate government assistance, the assistance is the reason for poverty. It is called dependency, not only on drugs, but the free money.
I don't buy that. People are not dependent because they're on welfare, they're on welfare because they're dependent. There will always be unproductive members of society.
People are not dependent because they're on welfare
"The Right has long held, and the Left is coming reluctantly to agree, that welfare creates a culture of dependency, sapping the initiative of its recipients. In the slums right now a generation of illegitimate children raised fatherless on Aid to Families with Dependent Children is being encouraged by welfare to produce the next generation. " Freeman
they're on welfare because they're dependent.
The only indigent members of society are the mentally disabled and the severely physically disabled. They are unproductive, and it is not government's responsibility to forcibly take from those who do produce to those who don't. This is why there are charities, churches and families. Anyone who does not fit into those categories are dependent due to welfare.
"The Right has long held, and the Left is coming reluctantly to agree, that welfare creates a culture of dependency, sapping the initiative of its recipients. In the slums right now a generation of illegitimate children raised fatherless on Aid to Families with Dependent Children is being encouraged by welfare to produce the next generation."
The right has long held many things which I am well inclined to disagree, why now should I feel different? In a nation of prosperity and wealth, poverty is caused by inequality and greed. It always has been. Welfare did not create dependency, the impoverished have always been dependent on the table scraps of the wealthy. This has been true since the beginning of recorded history. Inequality not assistance, creates dependency. And Greed creates inequality. If history attests to anything, it is this.
The only indigent members of society are the mentally disabled and the severely physically disabled.
Not the only ones, but they certainly make up a large portion. Many welfare recipients have poor job/social skills not easily attributed to a particular disability but are likely an accumulation of other factors like upbringing, educational attainment, verbal skills, intelligence etc...
They are unproductive, and it is not government's responsibility to forcibly take from those who do produce to those who don't.
Often due to factors or circumstances out of their control. Medical bills are the number 1 cause of bankruptcy.
They are unproductive, and it is not government's responsibility to forcibly take from those who do produce to those who don't.
It is our socio-economic system that causes most of these problems to begin with, it is not unreasonable to expect those who have benefited most from such a system to help those who have suffered most under it.
This is why there are charities, churches and families.
We already have these services and they still don't come anywhere near meeting current needs. If we relied solely on the goodwill of charities and churches we would see our own citizens starve before us. And as you and I both know the goodwill of churches often come with "strings attached".
Many welfare recipients have poor job/social skills not easily attributed to a particular disability but are likely an accumulation of other factors like upbringing, educational attainment, verbal skills, intelligence etc...
Other than being mentally or physically disabled, so being STUPID is a good justification for getting free money to sit on OWN couch all day. Just because they made bad decisions doesn't mean that everyone should pay for it. They don't learn anything except create a generation of dependency of stupidity. Welfare
Medical bills are the number 1 cause of bankruptcy.
Medical bills are skyrocketing Only because of government intervention. Cato
It is our socio-economic system that causes most of these problems to begin with, it is not unreasonable to expect those who have benefited most from such a system to help those who have suffered most under it.
Socioeconomics is a stupid term used by sociologist hippies, it is meaningless.
In capitalism, no suffers most under it. It is anti-poverty.
We already have these services and they still don't come anywhere near meeting current needs.
More charity givings would become apparent if government taxes would not so high, plus those services provided by government would be cheaper if provided by the market.
If we relied solely on the goodwill of charities and churches we would see our own citizens starve before us.
That is untrue and I am well inclined to disagree. Since I have to pay taxes for welfare, I simply don't give to charity since government charity in your view is perfect, but if taxes were lower, I would give more because private charity is better than government welfare because it is not force. Private charity is compassion, and government welfare is dependency.
If that is true, then I would assume that under your definition, wealth is caused by equality and collectivity.
No. Without getting into the differences between necessary and sufficient causes, I will just say this:
Wealth creation does not necessitate poverty reduction. If you are just creating wealth for those that hold the majority wealth anyway, the poverty rate will remain largely unaffected. Most nations have enough wealth to bring most or all of their citizens out of poverty, but because of inequitable wealth distribution they remain in poverty.
Wrong Cato
The Cato institute is little more than the think-tank ideological wing of Koch Industries. I have little respect for the Cato Institute even if I do agree with them occasionally. As a matter of fact, I don't have much respect for any think-tank. The very structure of think-tanks disincentivize them from ever coming to a conclusion contrary to their stated position even if compelling new evidence demands it.
Welfare does not cause 'welfare dependency', poverty does. If you have few educational or occupational opportunities, if you have disabilities, or poor social/job skills, getting rid of welfare does nothing to address these problems.
Other than being mentally or physically disabled, so being STUPID is a good justification for getting free money to sit on OWN couch all day.
I'm not suggesting that anyone should just sit on their couch all day. Many impoverished do work or would work given the opportunity. You seem to be under the impression that welfare is just some infinite pipeline of free money given to the poor. Unemployment benefits are temporary, and require recipients to look for jobs. The only people whose benefits are permanent are those who are permanently disabled. And often times these benefits need to be supplemented by shitty minimum wage jobs (often the only ones availed for the uneducated and impaired).
Just because they made bad decisions doesn't mean that everyone should pay for it.
Who said anything about bad decisions?
Medical bills are skyrocketing Only because of government intervention.
It doesn't really matter why Medical Bills are high, the point I'm making is that there are often circumstances out of one's control that lend to the need of welfare programs.
Socioeconomics is a stupid term used by sociologist hippies, it is meaningless.
Well, this would be the first time anyone has called me a hippie. You may object to the term, but it nevertheless has a meaning. It refers to the social impact of economic policy. It's a field of study all on it's own. And you still haven't addressed my argument.
In capitalism, no suffers most under it. It is anti-poverty.
This is entirely counter-factual. Poverty has been a problem in every capitalistic society that has ever existed.
More charity givings would become apparent if government taxes would not so high, plus those services provided by government would be cheaper if provided by the market.
A lot of charities are scams. And even those that are not, much of your donations go towards administrative and operational costs of the charity. Charities are good for niche illnesses, and natural disaster relief, but cannot be a permanent substitute for SSI, medicaid, Medicare, and unemployment benefits.
if taxes were lower, I would give more
I have no doubt many people would give more, but it still wouldn't compensate for the loss of eliminating welfare altogether. I highly doubt everybody will put 100% of their tax savings towards charity. So in the end less money overall would go towards helping the needy.
Wealth creation does not necessitate poverty reduction. If you are just creating wealth for those that hold the majority wealth anyway, the poverty rate will remain largely unaffected.
This is only under the assumption of TOP DOWN supply or demand economics.
Bottom up economics is wealth creation from the poorest citizens due to free markets and free minds. This guy describes the difference between top down versus bottom up economics.
Most nations have enough wealth to bring most or all of their citizens out of poverty, but because of inequitable wealth distribution they remain in poverty.
You think that the United States should redistribute my money and your money to not only indigent Americans but all across the world. Good plan. So, instead of growing the economy through more production, you want to spread out the existing wealth out and make everyone poor.
Note: The more people get taxed, the less incentive they have to work hard.
The Cato institute is little more than the think-tank ideological wing of Koch Industries.
Whatever.
I have little respect for the Cato Institute even if I do agree with them occasionally.
Again, Congratulations.
It doesn't really matter why Medical Bills are high, the point I'm making is that there are often circumstances out of one's control that lend to the need of welfare programs.
It does matter because if medical bills were actually market based, they could afford them, or if not, charity would step in.
It refers to the social impact of economic policy.
There is no such considering economics only impact individuals.
Well, this would be the first time anyone has called me a hippie.
I guess a congratulations is in due, but I guess not because I wasn't calling you a hippie directly unless you are a useless sociologist.
Poverty has been a problem in every capitalistic society that has ever existed.
And it is a bigger problem in collective society. Poverty stems from the amount government intervention into markets.
A lot of charities are scams.
Oh, yeah, government can't be scandalous. WHY Because it is the government, it is perfect in very way. That is why you idealize it.
And even those that are not, much of your donations go towards administrative and operational costs of the charity.
Same could be said in government offices. If anything, it is more costly because of its tendency of waste due to inefficiency.
Charities are good for niche illnesses, and natural disaster relief, but cannot be a permanent substitute for SSI, medicaid, Medicare, and unemployment benefits.
Whatever!!
I highly doubt everybody will put 100% of their tax savings towards charity.
You seriously have no authority to speak on behalf what people would do with their tax savings concerning human action. As a matter of fact, most of my tax savings would go to charity due to my compassion for charity and hatred of government. The rest would go into savings which would be used to create new productive means in creating jobs.
This is only under the assumption of TOP DOWN supply or demand economics.
Bottom up economics is wealth creation from the poorest citizens due to free markets and free minds. This guy describes the difference between top down versus bottom up economics.
It's not under the assumption of either. I didn't say wealth creation never causes poverty reduction, what I said was that it doesn't Necessitate it. In other words, it's possible to increase wealth without reducing poverty. Although you are right in that bottom-up economics is preferable to bottom down.
You think that the United States should redistribute my money and your money to not only indigent Americans but all across the world. Good plan. So, instead of growing the economy through more production, you want to spread out the existing wealth out and make everyone poor.
I'm not saying The United States should do anything, I'm simply pointing out that most poverty is due to inequitable wealth distribution. I haven't suggested yet what we should do about it. The reason I am pointing out what the causes of poverty are, is to show that welfare largely has nothing to do with it. I'm refuting your claim that welfare causes poverty.
It does matter because if medical bills were actually market based, they could afford them, or if not, charity would step in.
Charities still haven't stepped in. What the hell are they waiting for?
There is no such considering economics only impact individuals.
This is a nonsensical answer. Society is made up of individuals, if it impacts more than one individual then it's impacting the society.
I guess not because I wasn't calling you a hippie directly unless you are a useless sociologist.
You probably don't remember this but way back when I was still fairly new to this site, I mentioned that my degree was in applied social psychology. It is something I've put to good use when engaging in civil affairs with local afghan leaders when I was deployed.
And it is a bigger problem in collective society. Poverty stems from the amount government intervention into markets.
Not really. China has both a substantially lower poverty rate and unemployment rate than the United States. I'm not suggesting we become communists, I'm simply refuting your claim that capitalism is anti-poverty.
Oh, yeah, government can't be scandalous.
I never said that, but it isn't necessary to my point either. There is less oversight with charities and the laws over misleading or deceptive charities are fuzzy at best.
Same could be said in government offices.
No it can't. Welfare offices operate in existing government buildings, and share resources with other departments.
You seriously have no authority to speak on behalf what people would do with their tax savings
It's simply a matter of probability. The probability of everyone spending their ENTIRE tax savings on charities, is incredibly low. You're always going to have some people who aren't that generous and who don't care about the needy. A lot of people will either immediately spend it or save it. This isn't even taking into account those who give charity based on religious doctrine; Tithe literally means one-tenth, and if this person is already meeting that goal, they have no reason to increase the amount.
The rest would go into savings which would be used to create new productive means in creating jobs.
It really doesn't make any economic difference whether you have the money or a poor person has the money. The poor person could just as easily put it into savings, or they could even spend it, which also creates jobs.
In other words, it's possible to increase wealth without reducing poverty.
That is simply untrue. Any creation of wealth benefits all.
I'm simply pointing out that most poverty is due to inequitable wealth distribution.
Poverty is not inequitable wealth distribution, poverty is simply the lack of production and property rights, an economy grows with more production, not spending. When property rights and production is restricted, wealth creation is stagnate, and poverty grows.
Charities still haven't stepped in. What the hell are they waiting for?
Probably because government needs to get out of the way.
Society is made up of individuals, if it impacts more than one individual then it's impacting the society.
Societies or groups have no independent existence apart from actions of individual members. Since no two people are the same, nothing can impact two individuals the same.
You probably don't remember this but way back when I was still fairly new to this site, I mentioned that my degree was in applied social psychology.
WOW!! Congratulations on an even more useless degree. Does it rank among the ranks of English Literature or Complementary Art or Art History?
I am so thrilled that you were able to listen to the feeling of the afghan leaders. This war has just been rightly justified. You are listening to their feelings.
China has both a substantially lower poverty rate and unemployment rate than the United States.
China has a lower poverty and unemployment rate only because American are still more productive than China. Basically, China doesn't have the capital goods in producing consumer goods.
I'm simply refuting your claim that capitalism is anti-poverty.
Then what is anti poverty? Is it collectivism? It must be government programs because then we just need more welfare. We need more non producing humans being to reverse poverty.
There is less oversight with charities and the laws over misleading or deceptive charities are fuzzy at best.
Big deal, that proves nothing, scams in charity quickly spread, and those scams are gone. Government scams quickly spread, and those scams last forever.
The probability of everyone spending their ENTIRE tax savings on charities, is incredibly low.
Of course not, what don't you understand with social psychology degree? Government doesn't make you richer, it makes you poorer. Tax savings can be used for other means such as putting into savings for it could be used in more productive means.
The poor person could just as easily put it into savings, or they could even spend it, which also creates jobs.
That is simply untrue. Any creation of wealth benefits all.
Poverty is not inequitable wealth distribution, poverty is simply the lack of production and property rights, an economy grows with more production, not spending. When property rights and production is restricted, wealth creation is stagnate, and poverty grows.
I will refute this with one number: $556,300
This is the net worth of every American if wealth was distributed evenly. This is enough not just to end poverty, but to completely blow it out of the water. There simply is no excuse. There is no Lack of wealth in the United States. We are the wealthiest nation in the World, bar none. We are one of the most productive nations in the world. If wealth creation reduced poverty we would have ended Poverty long ago. If Production reduced poverty, we would have ended poverty long ago.
Inequality causes poverty, any argument to the contrary spits in the face of reality.
Probably because government needs to get out of the way.
This is your excuse for whenever the private sector fails. Hell, the government gives pretty generous tax breaks for charity as it is. If charities aren't meeting the needs of the needy, it is us who have failed. It is a general unconcern for the needy, that can account for this failure. Most people aren't very generous. I appreciate your idealism, but it just isn't well-grounded and it's not as if these things haven't had adequate time to be tested. They've been tested and it hasn't worked.
Societies or groups have no independent existence apart from actions of individual members.
Individuals are bound by common interests, common values, common beliefs, and common behaviors....bound into what we would call a society. One society may differ significantly from another. And because people have relationships with each other, and they interact with each other, something which affects one or more individuals may reverberate throughout the society. For instance, homelessness doesn't just affect the homeless, it affects others as well. The mere presence of homeless people can drive down property values, and the desperation that accompanies homelessness can also be a driver for crime in a community.
WOW!! Congratulations on an even more useless degree.
I have used, I am using it now, ergo it's not useless. But thanks for the fake congratulations. You must have an associates degree in sarcasm.
China has a lower poverty and unemployment rate only because American are still more productive than China.
Considering the fact that prolonged unemployment leads to poverty this contradicts two of your previous claims:
1. Capitalism is anti-poverty
2. Poverty is the lack of production
The very existence of a productive capitalistic nation with higher unemployment and higher poverty rates than a less productive and communist nation, contradicts nearly everything you have said so far.
Then what is anti poverty?
Equality
Government doesn't make you richer, it makes you poorer.
This is a pretty broad generalization. Government as a whole doesn't do either, however certain government programs may make some richer while making others poorer. In the United States it's the Rich who get richer and the poor who get poorer.
Spending doesn't create jobs, production does.
Addendum: Spending allows jobs to exist. No spending. No Jobs.
This confirms that Bohemian is either a communist or socialist.
What happens to those who are tired of producing all the wealth and only getting what is evenly distributed? What incentive do they have to working harder?
Let me guess? Collective benefit to SOCIETY?
If wealth creation reduced poverty we would have ended Poverty long ago.
America is not an capitalist country. Government intervention distorts markets; thus, it hampers grow, and creates poverty.
If Production reduced poverty, we would have ended poverty long ago.
Actually, all indications show that production has been reduced poverty significantly over the last 2000 years. Any argument to the contrary spits in the face of reality.
This is your excuse for whenever the private sector fails
Private sector never fails, you just resort to private sector failing when the government fails.
Individuals are bound by common interests, common values, common beliefs, and common behaviors....bound into what we would call a society.
Sure societies exist, but no decisions are made by collective reasoning. Only individuals act.
Considering the fact that prolonged unemployment leads to poverty this contradicts two of your previous claims:
1. Capitalism is anti-poverty
2. Poverty is the lack of production
No, it doesn't. Not even to the most delusional mind as yourself.
First, America is not capitalism, it is a mixed economy. Again, the existence of government intervention distorts markets; thus, there is misallocation of resources.
Second, prolonged unemployment is due to the lack of production and lack of capital investment.
Third, as aforementioned, America still has the highest capital investment. Capital investment leads to tractors rather than just shovels. More shovels and less tractors means more jobs, which means lower productivity. Lower productivity leads to less economic growth.
Lastly, China is not a true communist nation, since the early 90s, China has put into place many marketplace mechanisms, which has vastly increased capital investment and high productivity.
In the United States it's the Rich who get richer and the poor who get poorer.
That is a catchy phrase. Idiots like yourself actually believe it.
This is contradictory of a previous claim that you believe in bottom up economics, which is Austrian Economics. The Catch phrase is entirely entrenched in top down economics.
Addendum: Spending allows jobs to exist. No spending. No Jobs.
This is so wrong that is laughable and I can't believe I wasted my time again. Capital Investment into production is job creation otherwise an economy is stuck in primitive consumption. An economy grows as production grows.
This confirms that Bohemian is either a communist or socialist.
If this is your argument then you might as well cede victory to me.
What happens to those who are tired of producing all the wealth and only getting what is evenly distributed? What incentive do they have to working harder?
And again, I'm not saying we should do this, just pointing out that we have more than enough wealth to end poverty quite easily. I don't believe we should have a totally flat wealth distribution, but it certainly should be a hell of a lot flatter than it is now. We have a growing gap between the rich and the Poor. Why is it growing? Because laws are made by the same people who are benefiting most from them. The super Wealthy.
America is not an capitalist country. Government intervention distorts markets; thus, it hampers grow, and creates poverty.
$556,300
This is the Net Worth of every American if wealth was distributed evenly. I don't know possibly what more evidence it would take to convince you that this isn't a problem caused by lack of production or wealth. We are the wealthiest country in the history of mankind (even despite our hampered/distorted markets), and yet poverty still persists, I would think you are quick enough to realize that it's not a problem with lack of wealth creation, but with inequitable distribution.
Even with the evidence smacking you in the face I doubt you will change your mind. Wealth distribution probably reminds you of Communism and you must resist and deny at all costs. Of course I will say it myself, I'm not an advocate of communism nor am I an advocate of pure capitalism.
Private sector never fails
This is a statement of faith.
you just resort to private sector failing when the government fails.
Government does sometimes fail, I have never ever denied this. Now it's time for you to admit that the Private sector also fails.
Sure societies exist, but no decisions are made by collective reasoning
What does the existence or non-existence of collective reasoning have to do with the fact that there are social implications for economic policies?
First, America is not capitalism, it is a mixed economy.
It's a hell of a lot more capitalistic than China. So why does China have a lower poverty rate if Capitalism is 'anti-poverty'? If lack of production causes poverty, then why does a more productive nation like the United States have a higher poverty rate than China? Your argument is contradicted by facts
Again, the existence of government intervention distorts markets; thus, there is misallocation of resources.
Resources are misallocated in what way? Please give an example.
Second, prolonged unemployment is due to the lack of production and lack of capital investment.
See China example above.
Second, prolonged unemployment is due to the lack of production and lack of capital investment.
Third, as aforementioned, America still has the highest capital investment. Capital investment leads to tractors rather than just shovels. More shovels and less tractors means more jobs
You contradict yourself.
Lastly, China is not a true communist nation, since the early 90s, China has put into place many marketplace mechanisms, which has vastly increased capital investment and high productivity.
Then you would like to move towards an economy similar to China's?
That is a catchy phrase. Idiots like yourself actually believe it.
Because it's true, and I have statistics to prove it.
You wouldn't mind telling me if you Think Reagan believed more in Keynesian or Austrian Economics then, would you?
This is so wrong that is laughable
So it's wrong that without spending jobs wouldn't exist? So if you have a job at a store, and nobody is spending money in your store you will always have a job, right? You don't actually need to make money to keep a job; Is this what you're telling me?
