BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//InvisionCommunity Events 5.0.18//EN METHOD:PUBLISH CALSCALE:GREGORIAN REFRESH-INTERVAL:PT15M X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT15M X-WR-CALNAME:RMCommunityCalendar NAME:RMCommunityCalendar BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/London TZURL:https://tzurl.org/zoneinfo/Europe/London X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/London BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:BST DTSTART:20260329T020000Z RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 TZNAME:GMT DTSTART:20261025T020000Z RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT SUMMARY:Economic Corner 44 08/12/2026 DTSTAMP:20260813T041006Z SEQUENCE:0 UID:795-7-c3fe8195a3dde498d013e477e2142422@aalbc.com ORGANIZER;CN="richardmurray":noreply@aalbc.com DESCRIPTION:a post about the populace in the usa was presentedhttps://aa lbc.com/tc/topic/12856-nilf-neetpeople-who-are-voluntarily-unemployedIt is based on the following articlehttps://www.aei.org/commentary/what-do-prim e-age-nilf-men-do-all-day/The following are excerpt response pairs\, excer pts from the article and responses from meThanks to the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics\, we have detailed\, sel f-reported information each year on how roughly 10\,000 adult respondents spend their days—from the moment they wake until they sleep.so they are supporting their position based on a study of ten thousand in a country of three hundred and fifty million. One percent of three hundred and fifty m illion is three million and five hundred thousand. A thousandth of one per cent is three thousand and five hundred. so ten thousand is three thousand th of one percent. Why is a study of three thousandth of one percent adequ ate to make any position toward any populace.Just how and why so many men in the prime of life should now be swept up in this flight from work is a matter of continuing scholarly research and debate.So they admit they don' t have any position that has been researched adequately to comprehend the processes that are leading to or the causes to the choices in the populace to labor. But they suggest Universal Basic income will be a negative.I se e job fairs in New York City where usually hundreds but sometimes thousand s of people are looking to land one job\, putting on suits and preparing a ll sorts of papers to pitch themselves\, but at the end of the day\, one p erson will get a second interview or perhaps accepted for employment while ninety nine to nine hundred and ninety nine will have to continue.The art icles argument is that the labor market in the usa is adequate to employ a ll in the usa\, if they would gain more education or apply themselves to m ore job opportunities.I don't know. The problem with labor in the usa is h istorically the labors that generated the most human involvement were labo r intensive. When I look at NYC the biggest job markets are not in enginee ring but in nursing- the aging populace in the usa needs workers\, law- th e city always needs lawyers to fill the low paying legal jobs.Jobs in desi gn or engineering are not enough\, to restate if everyone in NYC not emplo yed had the experience in various engineering disciplines\, they would not all be hired in 48 hours. And the article criminalizes those in college a s unlabored\, when I know many people in the city university of new York h ave lived their entire lives as scholars.The reality is ever since circa e ighteen hundred and sixty five ( 1865 ) white people in particular have co mplained about the viewpoint citizens have in the usa to the idea/role/val ue of fiscal capitalistic labor. Before circa 1865 whites never complained \, post circa 1865 whites have never stop complaigning until now it is sil ly.The reality is\, technology has always deleted human labor \, from the cottin gin doing it before 1865 till various assembly lines to electronic computers to computers called artificial intelligence deleted human labor to the USA has a very powerful mechanical or electronic labor force that a llows the fiscal wealthy to maintain plus grow their financial fortunes wi th no need of human laborers.The funny thing is in the countries so media labeled hard working or grandly educated populaces you see signs they are going through it. Japan is inviting students from the likes of Africa to h ave lives in Japan and build population growth. Many Japanese business are going out of business as Japanese are not coming in to run the business\, either as younger Japanese don't want to or the population simply can't s upport the maintenance of the firm.China still has tons of people leaving china to find financial happiness outside china\, even though many say chi na has more engineers than anywhere else. But clearly not all.The reality is\, technology has ended in the rich or powerful countries the need for m asses of human laborers.But who is the American Enterprise Institute?their founding statement is the followingto promote \"greater public knowledge and understanding of the social and economic advantages accruing to the Am erican people through the maintenance of the system of free\, competitive enterprise.\"I restate\, maintaining a set of studies for willing elected officials to support legislation or legislative acts that allow for comple te fiscal capitalism\, complete fiscal capitalism defined as fiscal capita lism where all can fail or succeed\, allowing criminality in any firm\, de manding legal systems penalize.The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) was founded by an asbestos maker who proudly admitted he saved money while ma king his workers sick. AEI doesn't mind any business at any size being all owed to go bankrupt\, they don't mind any business making money in any way \; they don't mind laborers failing\, being fired\, not having enough mone y to afford where they live.Thus Universal Basic Income is opposed to how they feel fiscal capitalism should operate.MORE INFORMATIONLewis H. Brown founded the American Enterprise Association (AEA) in New York\, a think ta nk which later moved to Washington\, D.C.\, and was renamed the American E nterprise Institute. He served as AEA's chairman until his death. Brown al so co-founded the Tax Foundation and served as chairman.[ https://web.arch ive.org/web/20090708195505/http://www.aei.org/history \, look below for th e content ][[ modern aei webpage doesn't refer to what the link above does https://www.aei.org/about/ ]]In 1984\, thirty-three years after Brown's d eath\, Johns-Manville was alleged to have prioritized profits over the hea lth and safety of employees during the time of his leadership. According t o testimony given in a federal court by Charles H. Roemer\, formerly an em ployee of Unarco\, describing a meeting between Unarco officials\, Lewis H . Brown and J-M attorney Vandiver Brown in the early 1940s\, \"I’ll neve r forget\, I turned to Mr. Brown\, one of the Browns made this crack (that Unarco managers were a bunch of fools for notifying employees who had asb estosis)\, and I said\, ‘Mr. Vandiver Brown do you mean to tell me you w ould let them work until they dropped dead?’ He said\, ‘Yes. We save a lot of money that way.'\"[ Testimony of Charles H. Roemer\, Deposition ta ken April 25\, 1984\, Johns-Manville Corp.\, et al. v. the United States o f America\, U.S. Claims Court Civ. No. 465-83C\, cited in Barry I. Castlem an\, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects\, 4th edition\, Aspen Law and Bus iness\, Englewood Cliffs\, NJ 1996\, p.581 ]CONTENT[ History of AEIThe Ame rican Enterprise Association (AEA) arrived in Washington in 1943\, in the thick of World War II. In Congress there was talk of making wartime price and production controls permanent to prevent another Depression when peace finally arrived. The tiny AEA\, a business group formed in New York City in 1938\, was horrified\; it resolved to open a Washington office to advoc ate rapid postwar economic demobilization and\, more generally\, to improv e Congress's understanding of the economic consequences of its actions. Th e new AEA office\, which eventually became headquarters and graduated from \"association\" to \"institute\,\" was the avant-garde of two momentous d evelopments of the decades to come\, both responding to the growing size a nd power of the federal government: the migration of business and trade as sociations from commercial centers to the nation's capital and the emergen ce of the policy \"think tank.\"AEA was a partnership of top executives of leading business and financial firms (Bristol-Myers\, General Mills\, Che mical Bank) and prominent policy intellectuals (Roscoe Pound of the Harvar d Law School\, economic journalist Henry Hazlitt\, and disillusioned New D ealer Raymond Moley). From the beginning\, however\, the Association's spi rit was libertarian and conservative rather than simply \"probusiness.\" I ts founding mission statement would still serve well: to promote \"greater public knowledge and understanding of the social and economic advantages accruing to the American people through the maintenance of the system of f ree\, competitive enterprise.\" So\, too\, its academic and empirical comm itments: AEA was to be \"nonpartisan and nonpolitical\,\" was to \"express no opinion of its own\,\" and was to produce \"accurate\, impartial\, and objective\" research.Following the highly successful dismantling of warti me economic controls\, the AEA Washington office began preparing analyses of legislative proposals and publishing studies on subjects that remain AE I staples today--Social Security reform\, government health insurance\, th e effects of trade on domestic employment\, and the effects of productivit y growth on wages and income. In 1950\, a fan letter from freshman congres sman Gerald R. Ford began a long and happy relationship with the late pres ident. AEA also produced philosophic tracts portraying private enterprise as a form of voluntary social cooperation undergirding strong communities and democratic self-government--intellectual sprouts that would later blos som in such landmark works as Michael Novak's The Spirit of Democratic Cap italism and Irving Kristol's Two Cheers for Capitalism.The arrival in 1954 of William J. Baroody marked the beginning of the modern AEI. The son of a Lebanese immigrant stonecutter\, Mr. Baroody gave up a secure job at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for the chance to lead a small\, financially str apped organization. He was an entrepreneur and risk-taker\, a strong polit ical conservative\, and a widely read intellectual convinced of the potent ial for ideas to move practical politics. During his twenty-six years at A EI\, he demonstrated singular gifts for spotting important academic talent and for promoting dense--and often contrarian--policy-reform ideas for bu sy public officials\, business executives\, and journalists. Mr. Baroody e xpanded the legislative analyses\, commissioned original research by leadi ng scholars\, and raised the money to pay the bills. Within a year of his arrival\, reviews and excerpts of AEA publications began appearing in the Wall Street Journal and Barron's. By the early 1960s\, economists Milton F riedman\, Paul McCracken\, and Gottfried Haberler had joined his academic advisory board. Mr. Baroody conceived for AEI a brilliant slogan that comb ined the Institute's commitment to freedom and competition with a forthrig ht challenge to the liberal orthodoxy of 1960s Washington: \"Competition o f ideas is fundamental to a free society.\"Mr. Baroody's leadership produc ed a period of astounding growth in the quantity and quality of the Instit ute's output\, making it one of the busiest and most productive centers of policy research in the nation and heralding the sea change in American po litics to come. In 1972\, Gottfried Haberler was appointed AEI's first \"r esident scholar\,\" to be joined the following year by Yale's William Fell ner\; the arrival of such renowned scholars signaled the Institute's inten tion to become a first-rate research institution in fact and name. When th e voters prematurely retired President Gerald R. Ford in 1976\, he became AEI's \"distinguished fellow\" and brought with him a dozen colleagues to pursue work begun in his administration\; among those who would subsequent ly return to public service were Arthur Burns\, Robert Bork\, Laurence Sil berman\, Antonin Scalia\, James C. Miller III\, John Snow\, Rudolph Penner \, and David Gergen. As AEI achieved critical institutional mass\, it was able to attract several of America's most influential thinkers\, including neoconservative godfather Irving Kristol\; economists Herbert Stein and M arvin Kosters\; sociologist Robert Nisbet\; political scientists Robert Go ldwin\, Jeane Kirkpatrick\, and Walter Berns\; theologian Michael Novak\; and author Ben Wattenberg.Having begun the 1970s with a budget of $1 milli on and a staff of ten\, AEI at decade's end had a budget of $8 million and a staff of 125. AEI had become a hotbed of innovative ideas--on deregulat ion\, tax reform\, trade policy\, social welfare problems\, and revitaliza tion of defense and foreign policy--that were about to debut on the politi cal stage.The 1980s were great years for AEI's ideas but troubled years fo r the institution itself. President Ronald Reagan appointed several dozen AEI scholars and fellows to his administration and to federal judgeships\, where they helped him to achieve monumental improvements in economic\, re gulatory\, and legal policy and to deploy the more assertive foreign polic y that dispatched Soviet Communism by decade's end. But Mr. Baroody died j ust months before Reagan's election\, and his successor\, son William Baro ody Jr.\, struggled to maintain his father's legacy in a transformed polit ical environment. With so many prominent AEIers in government\, and with t he emergence of several energetic new think tanks such as the Heritage Fou ndation and the Cato Institute\, AEI's reputation and finances suffered. S till\, many exceptional scholars remained busy and productive at AEI and b egan work on audacious new projects--such as producing a new liberal-conse rvative consensus on welfare reform that eventually produced the Welfare R eform Act of 1996.AEI's trustees appointed a new president in 1986--Christ opher DeMuth\, a lawyer and economist who had served in the Nixon and Reag an administrations and taught at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. M r. DeMuth revamped the Institute's program of foreign and defense policy s tudies and focused its domestic research agenda on traditional strengths: public finance and tax policy\; government regulation\; U.S. politics and political institutions\; and cultural\, philosophical\, and social welfare issues. He also instituted major managerial and financial reforms and a n ew and variegated publications program.Donors responded with alacrity\; by the early 1990s\, AEI had paid off its debts and was growing mightily in financial resources\, in the size of research staff\, and in the quality a nd influence of its output. Soon\, the Institute's eminent senior scholars were joined by a new generation of economists\, social scientists\, forei gn policy and trade experts\, and students of social and cultural problems . To name only two recent accomplishments\, Institute scholars\, and parti cularly Peter J. Wallison\, provided prescient warnings about the problems of the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fo reign policy\, Frederick W. Kagan is credited with providing the intellect ual and practical rationale for a change in strategy in Iraq in 2007\, whi ch came to be known as the surge.Today\, the Institute has a staff of 185\ , including seventy scholars and fellows. It also has a new president. In 2008\, after twenty-two years at the helm\, Mr. DeMuth stepped down as pre sident and moved down the hall to do research. His successor\, Arthur C. B rooks is a classical musician by training. He came late to the world of pu blic policy\, influenced by the innovative and daring social science resea rch of Charles Murray.After seven decades\, AEI continues to serve a vital role in the intellectual life of the nation. The Institute furnishes poli cymakers with ideas to meet the pressing challenges of today based on the resilient principles of private liberty\, individual opportunity\, and fre e enterprise. ]https://www.aei.org/commentary/too-big-to-fail-or-succeed/C ONTENT[ Too Big to Fail\, or SucceedAuthorby Peter J. WallisonDateJune 18\ , 2009ECO-Mon-0017-StockiStockphoto/DNY59In a speech at the White House ye sterday\, President Barack Obama outlined what he envisions for future reg ulation of the financial system. He called his plan “a new foundation fo r sustained economic growth . . . a transformation on a scale not seen sin ce the reforms that followed the Great Depression.” Indeed it is.His pla n\, if adopted\, will fundamentally change the nature of our financial sys tem and economy. The underlying concerns and assumptions are clear\, and t hey are made clearer by considering other ways that his administration has dealt with the consequences of competition–particularly the faux bankru ptcies of General Motors and Chrysler and the impending change in antitrus t policy. Although the president said in his speech that he supports free markets\, these initiatives confirm that the administration fears the “c reative destruction” that free markets produce\, preferring stability ov er innovation\, competition and change.According to the administration whi te paper circulated prior to the president’s speech\, the Federal Reserv e would be authorized to create a special regulatory regime–including re quirements for capital\, leverage and liquidity–for any firm “whose co mbination of size\, leverage\, and interconnectedness could pose a threat to financial stability if it failed.” In addition\, if a large financial firm is failing\, the Treasury is to be given the power–in lieu of bank ruptcy–to appoint a conservator or receiver to “stabilize” it.Despit e all the talk about credit priorities\, the fundamental point is that the administration used taxpayer money to overturn the market’s verdict.Des ignating particular financial firms for this kind of special regulatory tr eatment clearly signals to the markets that these institutions are too big to fail. It will reduce the perceived risk of lending to them\, enabling them to raise funds at lower cost than their smaller competitors.In other words\, the administration’s plan would create what are essentially gove rnment-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in every sect or of the financial economy–insurers\, securities firms\, finance compan ies\, bank holding companies\, and hedge funds–where these specially reg ulated firms are to be designated. The result will be devastating for comp etition. Larger firms will squeeze out smaller ones and aggressive small c ompanies will have less opportunity to overcome the government-backed winn ers.Moreover\, the administration’s proposal to provide a special bailou t mechanism for large firms confirms the likelihood that these firms will never be closed down or liquidated. Citing the market turmoil that followe d Lehman’s collapse\, the administration will argue that failures like t his are “disorderly.” But failure comes from risk-taking–the very so urce of our economy’s strength–and it is ultimately risk-taking and it s consequences that the administration’s plan is intended to prevent.The turmoil following Lehman’s failure occurred because market participants expected\, after the rescue of Bear Stearns\, that any larger firm would also be rescued. When Lehman wasn’t\, all market participants were requi red to recalibrate the risks of dealing with all others\, causing a freeze -up in lending and hoarding of cash. Lehman’s failure itself did not cau se any substantial losses\, and within two weeks of its bankruptcy filing Lehman’s trustee sold its brokerage\, investment banking\, and investmen t management businesses to four different buyers.Contrast this with AIG\, the administration’s paradigm\, which was saved by the government becaus e it was allegedly too big to fail. That firm is gradually wasting away un der government control\, with the taxpayers footing the bill.The administr ation’s fear of competitive outcomes is not reflected solely in financia l-sector policies. Consider General Motors and Chrysler. They were defeate d in the marketplace. Simply put\, they failed to build automobiles enough Americans wanted to buy.Their disappearance would not have threatened the stability of the financial system\, although it would undoubtedly have be en disruptive for suppliers\, dealers and employees. Yet the administratio n wouldn’t allow them to fail\, either. Despite all the talk about credi t priorities\, the fundamental point is that the administration used taxpa yer money to overturn the market’s verdict. If we want a preview of what the administration will do with the resolution authority it wants for lar ge financial companies\, we need look no further.The same pattern with reg ard to competitive markets can be seen in the Justice Department’s new a ntitrust policy. Christine Varney\, the new assistant attorney general in charge of antitrust policy\, has said that U.S. policy should be more like Europe’s. Until now\, U.S. antitrust policy has tried to protect compet ition. Europe attempts to protect competitors. Protecting competitors mean s blunting the skills of superior players\, allowing inferior managers and business models to remain in business and thus preventing better manageme nts and business models from emerging. Again\, stability wins out over cha nge and progress.The president has said on several occasions\, including i n yesterday’s speech\, that “I’ve always been a strong believer in t he power of the free market.” But his administration’s prescriptions t ell a different story. In AIG\, GM\, Chrysler\, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac we can see the future that the administration envisions for our economy –a sclerotic and unchanging structure of big companies working with\, pr otected by\, and relying on big government.Peter J. Wallison is the Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies at AEI. ]POST URL https://aal bc.com/tc/topic/12856-nilf-neetpeople-who-are-voluntarily-unemployed/#find Comment-83003POST CONTENTcontentI read the article...The one thing I notic e it doesn't concern itself with is the imprisoned or former imprisoned po pulace.Do you know circa forty thousand women in the usa are blockaded fro m labor because they had traces or marijuana in their babies when born and the states they were in labeled them as endangering a child/child abusers .These women \, most of whom have had multiple children and have no crimin al record are blockaded from work because of a situation in which their ch ild had a drug in them.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX-kDnO6GSIwhat is my larger point? How many people in the usa are blockaded from labor becau se of their criminal record? A criminal record whcih often is based on the criminal intent of law enforcers applying their activities to specific co mmunities for a fiscal or governmental policy agenda.But the reason why sa id populace isn't mentioned is because of the fiscal capitalistic philosop hy of the AEI \, which i argue is a faith based position toward fiscal cap italism which in Universal basic income is seeing the death of their faith as they know it.https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/795-economic-corner-44- 08122026/PRIOR EDITIONhttps://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/794-economic-corne r-43-08042026/NEXT EDITIONhttps://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/797-economic-c orner-45-08162026/COMMENTARY DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260812 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;INTERVAL=1 END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR