Man Protect Land. Woman Welcome Refugees.

[Spaz]

@Spaz make an argument about Singapore or some sh1t. Don't tell me about America.

I'm just telling the truth, would you prefer me to lie just to assuage ur prejudices?

Now that would make me a politician who would lie to make his voters happy but then quietly brings in immigrants...

 

[user43770]

I'm just telling the truth, would you prefer me to lie just to assuage ur prejudices?

Now that would make me a politician who would lie to make his voters happy but then quietly brings in immigrants...

What may apply to where you live, doesn't necessarily apply here.

That's why I'm against your one-size-fits-all, globalist mindset.

 

[Spaz]

What may apply to where you live, doesn't necessarily apply here.

That's why I'm against your one-size-fits-all, globalist mindset.

Well just point out which of what I said is not true for America.

If its true then...???

 

[user43770]

Well just point out which of what I said is not true for America.

If its true then...???

Pretty much every part.

 

[user43770]

But the America I grew up in is long gone.

I look at America today, and I don't recognize it.

You might as well use it and abuse it, spaz.

 

[Spaz]

But the America I grew up in is long gone.

I look at America today, and I don't recognize it.

You might as well use it and abuse it, spaz.

America is an innovative country that has always benefitted from migration.

It was migrations that spurred creativity and ingenuity since so many early Americans came from various backgrounds, cultures and that fusion is what was needed.

And into modern times it has remained so.

Take a man from 19th century into the 20th century America, he'd be appalled.

Take a man from the 20th century and into the 21st, he'd be equally appalled, as u r.

But those young men who grew up in the 21st century will never want to go to the 20th century much less the 19th century.

You just need to adapt with the times and evolve accordingly buddy, prosperity is there for anyone who is willing to take risks and work hard.

 

[user43770]

America is an innovative country that has always benefitted from migration.

It was migrations that spurred creativity and ingenuity since so many early Americans came from various backgrounds, cultures and that fusion is what was needed.

And into modern times it has remained so.

Take a man from 19th century into the 20th century America, he'd be appalled.

Take a man from the 20th century and into the 21st, he'd be equally appalled, as u r.

But those young men who grew up in the 21st century will never want to go to the 20th century much less the 19th century.

You just need to adapt with the times and evolve accordingly buddy, prosperity is there for anyone who is willing to take risks and work hard.

Early immigration was from Europe, as Europeans are attracted to challenge and the great unknown. Europeans made all of the great strides in medicine and technology. Granted, East Asians have taken existing technology and improved upon it.

Since America has turned prosperous, everybody wants to come here to get their share of the pie. The supply of workers from across the globe is limitless.

 

[user43770]

And workers from across the globe see America as a limitless resource to extract from. They feel no duty to the people of America, however. They're grifters, like you @Spaz, just trying to make a buck.

I can respect the fact that a man wants a better life, but I can also say that it is not my obligation to provide him one. If America went broke tomorrow, how many immigrants do you think we will see?

If these economic units you speak of are so great, why didn't they stay in their home countries and make them better? Why are fighting age males fleeing to Western countries, rather than fighting for their own?

You seem to have no idea of global politics, spaz. You just want the money!

Which I cannot respect.

 

[Spaz]

And workers from across the globe see America as a limitless resource to extract from. They feel no duty to the people of America, however. They're grifters, like you @Spaz, just trying to make a buck.

I can respect the fact that a man wants a better life, but I can also say that it is not my obligation to provide him one. If America went broke tomorrow, how many immigrants do you think we will see?

If these economic units you speak of are so great, why didn't they stay in their home countries and make them better? Why are fighting age males fleeing to Western countries, rather than fighting for their own?

You seem to have no idea of global politics, spaz. You just want the money!

Which I cannot respect.

I do admit that I only do what's profitable.

Any reason for me to do something that's brings me no profit?

You must really think that successive governments in American history is stupid, that they continuously took in migrants by the millions.

The fact is, immigration will not stop in America or in any country, no country could afford to do so.

But when it does stop in a country, then that country knows its time is up and the decline will truly start.

It is only then that you will realise that migrants is what makes a country more efficient, more productive and thus making its economy expand - but I think despite what you want, immigration will naturally decline in the US.

And increase in Canada, turning it into a behemoth to truly rival China and India.

 

[user43770]

I do admit that I only do what's profitable.

Any reason for me to do something that's brings me no profit?

You must really think that successive governments in American history is stupid, that they continuously took in migrants by the millions.

The fact is, immigration will not stop in America or in any country, no country could afford to do so.

But when it does stop in a country, then that country knows its time is up and the decline will truly start.

It is only then that you will realise that migrants is what makes a country more efficient, more productive and thus making its economy expand - but I think despite what you want, immigration will naturally decline in the US.

And increase in Canada, turning it into a behemoth to truly rival China and India.

I've read enough of your posts over the years to know you pretty well, I think. I know you're an immigrant yourself, and I doubt you feel any loyalty to the country you currently reside in.

The problem with America, and most Western nations, is that we spend 70% of our tax dollars on entitlement programs, and it's only going to get worse. Especially after leftists take full control, which won't be long now.

 

[AttackFormation]

The transition to a “service economy.”
A lot of good paying manufacturing jobs left the US. And now people want restaurants, retail stores and coffee shops to pay $15/hr to compensate.

Immigration both legal and illegal has increased the labor pool and put downward pressure (or at least slowed growth) on wages for both tech jobs and construction jobs.

I'm sure it creates wages wherever the home country ships their manufacturing to. Not sure if that was your argument.

But why should I care about the wages in Asia? It has nothing to do with me or anyone I care about.

I do my best to buy products made in America. It's almost impossible. I didn't realize the extent to which our production was outsourced. And it was done by leftists and conservatives alike.

Spaz tried to give me some Bill Clinton NAFTA bullsh1t reasoning, but I assume yours will be better.

If a man goes out to the woods to chop firewood, and someone offers to help him, he will be glad.
If a man goes to a JOB, but someone else offers to do the job too, he will be angry.

There is plenty of work around that needs to be done, and people like to cooperate to do work. But the way we as a society divide work into jobs puts people into competition with each other instead of cooperation. It's a kind of artificial scarcity, as is the "scarcity of domestic currency" to pay people enough to live on. At the same time there is an ever growing monopolisation of finance and property, either through mergers and acquisitions or through cartels.

This happens naturally in capitalism because privatised natural monopolies like credit-creating banks and other infrastructure, platform monopolies and the network effect, inelastic supply and asymmetric location value of real estate, anticompetitive practices, the compound interest effect and polarisation between creditors and debtors, and the economics of scale making big business more efficient than small business, all mean a natural tendency toward monopoly of profits and power.

When the Great Depression hit and millions everywhere became jobless despite there still being work to do, no war, no plague, no infrastructure collapse, no natural disaster, no material problem, it was because of the way the economy is structured and operated in tandem with these natural economic tendencies... not because of "globalisation". It's the same thing today. It will never change, until we work for economic democracy. Here's a question for you - if a community controlled its own jobs, would they outsource them? "Outsourcing" is just a symptom of an economic structure in which you and your community have little to no power over your circumstances and means to a living.

PS. USA has a very weak labor movement in the present (as a % of workers who participate in grassroots unions) and this has heavy consequence. It's not much better here either, but at least we still have collective bargaining. Everything workers have today in USA they have not because of the magnanimousness of the state and private owners, but because millions of people took grassroots direct action for it in the past despite being repressed by pinkerton agents, state militia and police. Stop reading this stupid forum and read some god damned labor history instead...!

Until there is economic democracy... nothing will change.

 

[user43770]

If a man goes out to the woods to chop firewood, and someone offers to help him, he will be glad.
If a man goes to a JOB, but someone else offers to do the job too, he will be angry.

There is plenty of work around that needs to be done, and people like to cooperate to do work. But the way we as a society divide work into jobs puts people into competition with each other instead of cooperation. It's a kind of artificial scarcity, as is the "scarcity of domestic currency" to pay people enough to live on. At the same time there is an ever growing monopolisation of finance and property, either through mergers and acquisitions or through cartels.

This happens naturally in capitalism because privatised natural monopolies like credit-creating banks and other infrastructure, platform monopolies and the network effect, inelastic supply and asymmetric location value of real estate, anticompetitive practices, the compound interest effect and polarisation between creditors and debtors, and the economics of scale making big business more efficient than small business, all mean a natural tendency toward monopoly of profits and power.

When the Great Depression hit and millions everywhere became jobless despite there still being work to do, no war, no plague, no infrastructure collapse, no natural disaster, no material problem, it was because of the way the economy is structured and operated in tandem with these natural economic tendencies... not because of "globalisation". It's the same thing today. It will never change, until we work for economic democracy. Here's a question for you - if a community controlled its own jobs, would they outsource them? "Outsourcing" is just a symptom of an economic structure in which you and your community have little to no power over your circumstances and means to a living.

PS. USA has a very weak labor movement in the present (as a % of workers who participate in grassroots unions) and this has heavy consequence. It's not much better here either, but at least we still have collective bargaining. Everything workers have today in USA they have not because of the magnanimousness of the state and private owners, but because millions of people took grassroots direct action for it in the past despite being repressed by pinkerton agents, state militia and police. Stop reading this stupid forum and read some god damned labor history instead...

Until there is economic democracy... nothing will change.

Politicians like to talk about employment, but one thing they will never talk about is cost of living. And it isn't because such numbers don't exist.

Politicians have definitely seen the cost of living figures (I mean, if I have, they have), comparing say, 1950 to 2020. When you see the difference it will almost floor you.

Why is it they never mention the devaluation of the dollar - Democrat or Republican?

I honestly don't know. I guess because it's like telling a child they're going to die one day. You try to keep them in the dark as long as possible.

 

[AttackFormation]

Politicians like to talk about employment, but one thing they will never talk about is cost of living. And it isn't because such numbers don't exist.

Politicians have definitely seen the cost of living figures (I mean, if I have, they have), comparing say, 1950 to 2020. When you see the difference it will almost floor you.

Why is it they never mention the devaluation of the dollar - Democrat or Republican?

I honestly don't know. I guess because it's like telling a child they're going to die one day. You just avoid it as long as possible.

You want me to talk economics, I'll talk economics.

Talking about employment is just a charade. The fact is there is always enough work for everyone to do who can reasonably work, we just don't share the work and so there is an artifical "jobs shortage". I'm talking about the work which is necessary to keep human civilization running, not stuff like sales, advertising, marketing, restaurant and fast food jobs, administrative bloating, finance jobs and other things that can be eliminated or made voluntary without breaking down civilisation. Instead we are put in competition with each other to survive, because of how we convert work into jobs, when there is no need to.

Anyway, cost of living..... devaluation of the dollar? that's a smaller factor for cost of living increase. Devaluation does make imports more expensive, but devaluation is not the fundamental reason for cost of living increases (unless there is hyperinflation in an import-dependent country).

The cost of living keeps increasing for 6 main reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

1) The debt-based monetary system of private bank credit creation which both causes its own creditor-debtor polarisation and fuels more of it through fueling finance and real estate speculation. A small minority makes the overwhelming majority of capital gains/passive income which the rest of the population pays into. This polarises the economy between creditors and debtors and means more and more of the income of people, businesses and governments goes to paying financial rent and debt, either directly or, through costs that are baked into prices and so you don't see, indirectly.

2) Owners of property (patents, real estate, corporations) simply raising prices because they can. See the Blackstone Group for example. This happens for two reasons, one is simply because profit seeking is the goal of our economy, the second for the abstract economic tendencies I describe in the quote you posted which enables it. This includes the education and healthcare debt bubbles in the US guaranteed by the state... countries without such bloated, for-profit education and healthcare systems don't have debt bubbles like that.

3) Consumers effectively accepting #2 by being willing to pay more rent and take on more debt, and even cheering on real estate price increases and financial speculation as they think this means they can pass the price inflation on to someone else like a ponzi scheme. They may also think their pensions have to depend on such ponzi schemes. This mindset is consumerism and conspicuous consumption on one hand and "people's capitalism" on the other, where everyone thinks they're a little atomised capitalist.

4) Weakened labor movements that have a low membership and grassroots organisation and little to no direct action. This means they can't demand wage increases to keep up with price inflations caused by #1, #2 and #3, let alone strive toward economic democracy. Weak tenant unions count too connected to #2.

5) The implementation of regressive taxes like income tax and VAT on labor and necessities, with the concurrent removal or evasion of progressive taxes on finance and property (capital/capital gains) which is where the flow of funds actually goes (and increasingly so, as you know). This may be justified with rhetoric effectively saying that our owners are so powerful that if we don't do what they want, they will sink the country, kind of like how a slave would be dissuaded from attempting freedom.

6) Devaluation (war spending tends to be a strong cause of it, but so can economic policy choice like here in Sweden). Like I said in the beginning, this is not a main factor unless there is hyperinflation in an import-dependent country, but you don't live in a country like that. Your cost of living rises mainly because of #1, #2, #3 and #4. #5 and #6 also contribute to exacerbate the problem, but are not the fundamental reasons.

 

[Spaz]

I've read enough of your posts over the years to know you pretty well, I think. I know you're an immigrant yourself, and I doubt you feel any loyalty to the country you currently reside in.

The problem with America, and most Western nations, is that we spend 70% of our tax dollars on entitlement programs, and it's only going to get worse. Especially after leftists take full control, which won't be long now.

I am not an immigrant. I did not migrate. While its true that I was posted in foreign countries and subsequently offered permanent residency in some.

That doesn't equal migration.

One even offered me citizenship, which I refused and unfortunately they then revoked my permanent residency status there - bastards wanna force me to be their citizen.

It is too bad that I am loyal to my own ancestral land and I will most likely be buried there as my father before me and his father before him.

All what I've said in my previous posts, herein, has no connection whatsoever with any political affiliation nor emotional affiliations.

I actually don't care abt the state of affairs in America.

But since u r members of this forum, my purpose here has always been to inform you men of the truths in this world that's full of smoke and mirrors.

I am not here to blog young man.

 

[user43770]

You want me to talk economics, I'll talk economics.

Talking about employment is just a charade. The fact is there is always enough work for everyone to do who can reasonably work, we just don't share the work and so there is an artifical "jobs shortage". I'm talking about the work which is necessary to keep human civilization running, not stuff like sales, advertising, marketing, restaurant and fast food jobs, administrative bloating, finance jobs and other things that can be eliminated or made voluntary without breaking down civilisation. Instead we are put in competition with each other to survive, because of how we convert work into jobs, when there is no need to.

Anyway, cost of living..... devaluation of the dollar? that's a smaller factor for cost of living increase. Devaluation does make imports more expensive, but devaluation is not the fundamental reason for cost of living increases (unless there is hyperinflation in an import-dependent country).

The cost of living keeps increasing for 6 main reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

1) The debt-based monetary system of private bank credit creation which both causes its own creditor-debtor polarisation and fuels more of it through fueling finance and real estate speculation. A small minority makes the overwhelming majority of capital gains/passive income which the rest of the population pays into. This polarises the economy between creditors and debtors and means more and more of the income of people, businesses and governments goes to paying financial rent and debt, either directly or, through costs that are baked into prices and so you don't see, indirectly.

2) Owners of property (patents, real estate, corporations) simply raising prices because they can. See the Blackstone Group for example. This happens for two reasons, one is simply because profit seeking is the goal of our economy, the second for the abstract economic tendencies I describe in the quote you posted which enables it. This includes the education and healthcare debt bubbles in the US guaranteed by the state... countries without such bloated, for-profit education and healthcare systems don't have debt bubbles like that.

3) Consumers effectively accepting #2 by being willing to pay more rent and take on more debt, and even cheering on real estate price increases and financial speculation as they think this means they can pass the price inflation on to someone else like a ponzi scheme. They may also think their pensions have to depend on such ponzi schemes. This mindset is consumerism and conspicuous consumption on one hand and "people's capitalism" on the other, where everyone thinks they're a little atomised capitalist.

4) Weakened labor movements that have a low membership and grassroots organisation and little to no direct action. This means they can't demand wage increases to keep up with price inflations caused by #1, #2 and #3, let alone strive toward economic democracy. Weak tenant unions count too connected to #2.

5) The implementation of regressive taxes like income tax and VAT on labor and necessities, with the concurrent removal or evasion of progressive taxes on finance and property (capital/capital gains) which is where the flow of funds actually goes (and increasingly so, as you know). This may be justified with rhetoric effectively saying that our owners are so powerful that if we don't do what they want, they will sink the country, kind of like how a slave would be dissuaded from attempting freedom.

6) Devaluation (war spending tends to be a strong cause of it, but so can economic policy choice like here in Sweden). Like I said in the beginning, this is not a main factor unless there is hyperinflation in an import-dependent country, but you don't live in a country like that. Your cost of living rises mainly because of #1, #2, #3 and #4. #5 and #6 also contribute to exacerbate the problem, but are not the fundamental reasons.

Thank you for the well thought out response. I don't think those are the reasons here in the states, but a good read, none the less

 

[user43770]

I am not an immigrant. I did not migrate. While its true that I was posted in foreign countries and subsequently offered permanent residency in some.

That doesn't equal migration.

One even offered me citizenship, which I refused and unfortunately they then revoked my permanent residency status there - bastards wanna force me to be their citizen.

It is too bad that I am loyal to my own ancestral land and I will most likely be buried there as my father before me and his father before him.

All what I've said in my previous posts, herein, has no connection whatsoever with any political affiliation nor emotional affiliations.

I actually don't care abt the state of affairs in America.

But since u r members of this forum, my purpose here has always been to inform you men of the truths in this world that's full of smoke and mirrors.

I am not here to blog young man.

I knew you were loyal to your own people, and you just proved my point. I trolled it out of you

Tribalism is inescapable. You can move workers from one country to another, but you can't change the allegiance in their heart.

 

[Spaz]

I knew you were loyal to your own people, and you just proved my point. I trolled it out of you

Tribalism is inescapable. You can move workers from one country to another, but you can't change the allegiance in their heart.

I hv never hidden it.

Somewhere in this forum, I've stated that I am a tribal chieftain, a position that I inherited.

 

[user43770]

You want me to talk economics, I'll talk economics.

Talking about employment is just a charade. The fact is there is always enough work for everyone to do who can reasonably work, we just don't share the work and so there is an artifical "jobs shortage". I'm talking about the work which is necessary to keep human civilization running, not stuff like sales, advertising, marketing, restaurant and fast food jobs, administrative bloating, finance jobs and other things that can be eliminated or made voluntary without breaking down civilisation. Instead we are put in competition with each other to survive, because of how we convert work into jobs, when there is no need to.

Anyway, cost of living..... devaluation of the dollar? that's a smaller factor for cost of living increase. Devaluation does make imports more expensive, but devaluation is not the fundamental reason for cost of living increases (unless there is hyperinflation in an import-dependent country).

The cost of living keeps increasing for 6 main reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

1) The debt-based monetary system of private bank credit creation which both causes its own creditor-debtor polarisation and fuels more of it through fueling finance and real estate speculation. A small minority makes the overwhelming majority of capital gains/passive income which the rest of the population pays into. This polarises the economy between creditors and debtors and means more and more of the income of people, businesses and governments goes to paying financial rent and debt, either directly or, through costs that are baked into prices and so you don't see, indirectly.

2) Owners of property (patents, real estate, corporations) simply raising prices because they can. See the Blackstone Group for example. This happens for two reasons, one is simply because profit seeking is the goal of our economy, the second for the abstract economic tendencies I describe in the quote you posted which enables it. This includes the education and healthcare debt bubbles in the US guaranteed by the state... countries without such bloated, for-profit education and healthcare systems don't have debt bubbles like that.

3) Consumers effectively accepting #2 by being willing to pay more rent and take on more debt, and even cheering on real estate price increases and financial speculation as they think this means they can pass the price inflation on to someone else like a ponzi scheme. They may also think their pensions have to depend on such ponzi schemes. This mindset is consumerism and conspicuous consumption on one hand and "people's capitalism" on the other, where everyone thinks they're a little atomised capitalist.

4) Weakened labor movements that have a low membership and grassroots organisation and little to no direct action. This means they can't demand wage increases to keep up with price inflations caused by #1, #2 and #3, let alone strive toward economic democracy. Weak tenant unions count too connected to #2.

5) The implementation of regressive taxes like income tax and VAT on labor and necessities, with the concurrent removal or evasion of progressive taxes on finance and property (capital/capital gains) which is where the flow of funds actually goes (and increasingly so, as you know). This may be justified with rhetoric effectively saying that our owners are so powerful that if we don't do what they want, they will sink the country, kind of like how a slave would be dissuaded from attempting freedom.

6) Devaluation (war spending tends to be a strong cause of it, but so can economic policy choice like here in Sweden). Like I said in the beginning, this is not a main factor unless there is hyperinflation in an import-dependent country, but you don't live in a country like that. Your cost of living rises mainly because of #1, #2, #3 and #4. #5 and #6 also contribute to exacerbate the problem, but are not the fundamental reasons.

I don't want to belittle your response here.

One big difference in the past 70 years was adding women to the workforce. They may now outnumber men, even! They definitely outnumber men now in college degrees, and the contrast is only getting bigger.

Obviously, when you almost double the supply of workers, you're going to suppress wages. What nobody talks about is how this also increased taxes. Government spending tax dollars, I'm sure that will be responsible.

Women entering the workforce in mass, and thus becoming more politically minded, coincided with the rise of feminism. Which also aligns with the rise of the nanny state.

Taxes are gradually increased for social programs across the board. They increase to this day. There will never be enough tax dollars to satisfy the apparent needs of ever more social programs.

You've now created a huge government entity that will never go away. This has to be funded now, as a matter of course. It's devoid of argument.

So you have all of these tax dollars being spent in various directions, which somebody has to pay for. Obviously, you raise taxes on businesses first, as you want to get re-elected, but then you eventually have to raise taxes on the individual, too.

Combine this with reckless government wars, the FED changing interest rates, your elected officials watching your jobs outsourced

Lemme stop

 

[user43770]

I hv never hidden it.

Somewhere in this forum, I've stated that I am a tribal chieftain, a position that I inherited.

I know, brother. I used to pick on you when I was trolling hard

 

[AttackFormation]

I don't want to belittle your response here.

One big difference in the past 70 years was adding women to the workforce. They may now outnumber men, even! They definitely outnumber men now in college degrees, and the contrast is only getting bigger.

Obviously, when you almost double the supply of workers, you're going to suppress wages. What nobody talks about is how this also increased taxes. Government spending tax dollars, I'm sure that will be responsible.

Women entering the workforce in mass, and thus becoming more politically minded, coincided with the rise of feminism. Which also aligns with the rise of the nanny state.

Taxes are gradually increased for social programs across the board. They increase to this day. There will never be enough tax dollars to satisfy the apparent needs of ever more social programs.

You've now created a huge government entity that will never go away. This has to be funded now, as a matter of course. It's devoid of argument.

So you have all of these tax dollars being spent in various directions, which somebody has to pay for. Obviously, you raise taxes on businesses first, as you want to get re-elected, but then you eventually have to raise taxes on the individual, too.

Combine this with reckless government wars, the FED changing interest rates, your elected officials watching your jobs outsourced

Lemme stop

Women in the workforce aren't a fundamental wage suppressor for two reasons we can observe:

1) Wages are still stagnant in the jobs that are heavily male-dominated. This means that something else is stagnating the wages in those jobs - something more fundamental.

2) When women mostly worked outside of the money economy in the past, and I'm talking 19th and early 20th century, wages and the cost of living still had a terrible ratio in Europe (it was a bit different in USA because there there was "The Doctrine of High Wages" to a greater extent, backed up by economists like Simon Patten). This again shows that womens' participation is not a fundamental driver of wage stagnation or price inflation. If women working outside of the money economy would fix the economy, nearly half of Sweden wouldn't have emigrated to America from 1860-1914 to escape the economic conditions here, which by the way was also a time with as good as zero "social programs" here.

Your theory of a higher supply of workers meaning that wages get lowered makes sense intuitively, and is obviously true - IF those workers are competing against each other for work. That's the point. If workers compete against each other, instead of cooperating with each other like the owners do, then they will lose. "Exclusionist" craft unions in the past used the kind of theory you are thinking of, that they needed to define an exclusive cooperative in-group and then keep people out of it and restrict the amount of workers, but that doesn't work because A) those people still need incomes, B) smaller unions are weaker unions, weak unions lead to workers competing against each other, and workers competing against each other instead of cooperating means they lose. And more broadly, workers don't need to have a society where they compete against each other for survival, if they organise a different kind of society. Difference in labor organisation is the reason why service workers in USA get paid poorly compared to countries with collective bargaining, for example, but that's just a start.

About women in the workforce increasing the tax base, there are two problems with this:

1) It doesn't work with your first point. If there are a fixed number of jobs that workers compete for, and wages stagnate because women compete for them, then the tax base from those jobs and wages would stagnate too. To make it coherent, you have to decide which point you are going to believe - either women working was to increase the tax base (which I will get to in the next point), or it was to stagnate wages (which I've already talked about), but those points are logically incompatible with each other, they can't both be true.

2) If there are consumption taxes like VAT, and taxes on business income from what they make when consumers (non-working women spending household income) pay, then women working wouldn't have increased the tax base from their new wages being taxed- because it would just mean the proportion of tax income for the state shifts from VAT and/or business tax, to wage tax. The proportion shifts, but not the amount.

You are right that subsidising the Walmart-style food stamp, medical insurance, education and housing rackets with taxes is bad. We do the same thing here in Sweden, giving people tax money so they can pay the rent. The problem is that as long as the reason why the prices increase and you need rent support in the first place is because for-profit owners control the assets to the degree they have monopoly power over them, and there is no economic democracy, you are feeding the monster by throwing money at it. Price inflation is solved by keeping prices down, not by increasing spending on prices.

But the reason why you can't just solve this by eliminating the rent subsidy, is the same as why the rents increase in the first place: people have no choice but to live somewhere. Real estate has a supply which is both inelastic (you can't create more land), has a high barrier to entry (building a house and the infrastructure to service it has a very large barrier to entry for a normal person) is asymmetrically valuable (land in Stockholm's city center is vastly more valuable than land in Lappland's interior wilderness), and is necessary for people to access, which is why it's such a favorite speculation object.

But in order to keep prices down you need a theory of prices. And different schools of thought have different "ideas" on what that should be. The idea I follow is that you need to separate COST from PRICE, the point was to separate "earned income" from "economic rent", and you need to identify the economic effects that drive price. Now we have the opposite theory where any income is earned and productive by definition. The problem is our whole financial, corporate, real estate economy is based on this, your view that "social programs" are the fundamental problem for the economy is too narrow and shallow. You need to start reading economist Michael Hudson's stuff, here is an example article for you... from USA's own history.

Your elected representatives watching your jobs get outsourced is just a symptom. The actual problem is that you, your community, and your class as a worker don't control the economic assets, which means you are subject to the whims of whatever your masters want. You don't control your means to a living or your circumstances of living, that's the real problem that gives rise to the symptom.