|
On September 12 2011 15:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 14:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
First rule of economics: There is no such thing as a free lunch. That means you can't create something out of thin air, like "jobs."
The government doesn't create jobs, it merely shuffles them around. It can take money (jobs) from the private sector, and spend the money to create jobs somewhere else. It can take money (jobs) from the future to create jobs in the present, in the form of debt.
This is where the keynesian voodoo kicks in, and people start claiming that these jobs that were simply transferred from one place to another are going to lead to more jobs that weren't transferred from somewhere else. By money being circulated they think that more money is somehow created out of thin air. No, what happens is people simply become comfortable enough to start taking on more debt, paving the way for the next bubble. We worship the bubble, we consider it the standard.
What they don't realize is that in the process of government transferring money and jobs around, there are countless inefficiencies that are created, such as employing people whose sole purpose is to shuffle things around, and people who are employed to do paperwork. In other words, the process of transferring jobs itself costs jobs that would have produced actual goods that would have raised the standard of living. Let's not forget that the jobs the government actually creates through it's transfers are severely less efficient than those in the private sector. From no bid contracts, to waste, to corruption, to exorbitant public employee pay and benefits and pensions. I've seen it all first hand, because I've worked in the public sector. The jobs that are created produce significantly less than the jobs that could have remained in the private sector.
And let's not forget at the end of all of this, that it is undeniably immoral to take money and jobs from generations that have no say in the matter. It's nothing more than stealing from our children. We justify it by saying "we can afford it." We should be saying, "they can afford it." And yet, we can't even afford it now.
Please don't lecture me on the keynesian voodoo, I've heard it all before. The only way TRUE growth can occur, meaning not artificial growth that will be erased in the next recession (market correction), is to all allow the correction to complete without adding additional government inefficiency which merely serves to placate the masses who are ignorant of economics that the government is "doing something to create jobs." In line with your request that I avoid a counterargument I will simply state that I disagree. However it may be more conducive to debate if you don't follow your string of poorly articulated, barely relevant and entirely unsubstantiated claims with a plea not to have someone explain the opposing arguments. TRUE (capitals so you know it's actually true).
If Keynesian economic theory is your only counter argument, then no, I would prefer not to hear it. I've already heard it in college courses that certainly expounded the ideas better than you would in an internet forum.
I'm not sure which parts you considered irrelevant or unsubstantiated, because you merely asserted it without explaining your position, and personally I thought I articulated my message fairly well. And by the way, I didn't capitalize the word true as an argument of it's truthfulness.... It's called emphasis. I was emphasizing what true growth requires as opposed to artificial government growth. I could have used italics I suppose, but I didn't think capitals would confuse anyone.
|
United States43277 Posts
On September 12 2011 15:09 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 15:01 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 14:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
First rule of economics: There is no such thing as a free lunch. That means you can't create something out of thin air, like "jobs."
The government doesn't create jobs, it merely shuffles them around. It can take money (jobs) from the private sector, and spend the money to create jobs somewhere else. It can take money (jobs) from the future to create jobs in the present, in the form of debt.
This is where the keynesian voodoo kicks in, and people start claiming that these jobs that were simply transferred from one place to another are going to lead to more jobs that weren't transferred from somewhere else. By money being circulated they think that more money is somehow created out of thin air. No, what happens is people simply become comfortable enough to start taking on more debt, paving the way for the next bubble. We worship the bubble, we consider it the standard.
What they don't realize is that in the process of government transferring money and jobs around, there are countless inefficiencies that are created, such as employing people whose sole purpose is to shuffle things around, and people who are employed to do paperwork. In other words, the process of transferring jobs itself costs jobs that would have produced actual goods that would have raised the standard of living. Let's not forget that the jobs the government actually creates through it's transfers are severely less efficient than those in the private sector. From no bid contracts, to waste, to corruption, to exorbitant public employee pay and benefits and pensions. I've seen it all first hand, because I've worked in the public sector. The jobs that are created produce significantly less than the jobs that could have remained in the private sector.
And let's not forget at the end of all of this, that it is undeniably immoral to take money and jobs from generations that have no say in the matter. It's nothing more than stealing from our children. We justify it by saying "we can afford it." We should be saying, "they can afford it." And yet, we can't even afford it now.
Please don't lecture me on the keynesian voodoo, I've heard it all before. The only way TRUE growth can occur, meaning not artificial growth that will be erased in the next recession (market correction), is to all allow the correction to complete without adding additional government inefficiency which merely serves to placate the masses who are ignorant of economics that the government is "doing something to create jobs." In line with your request that I avoid a counterargument I will simply state that I disagree. However it may be more conducive to debate if you don't follow your string of poorly articulated, barely relevant and entirely unsubstantiated claims with a plea not to have someone explain the opposing arguments. TRUE (capitals so you know it's actually true). except how he's right. government doesn't produce anything. It only wastes resources to redistribute things. government can't create wealth, because money isn't wealth, money with no products only creates inflation, the total wealth can only be increased via production, which the private sector does in the most efficient way when it's unregulated
Jobs are a result of favourable conditions and favourable conditions certainly can be created through spending. Things like matter and energy can't be created, they can only be moved around and converted. The poster I responded to claimed that wealth worked in the same way and that therefore meant that jobs (which he seems to equate with wealth due to some middle step which he didn't bother to explain) couldn't be created. But that logic can't be applied to jobs because a job is a state of economic activity activity, not matter, nor energy, nor wealth.
|
On September 12 2011 15:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 15:09 Kiarip wrote:On September 12 2011 15:01 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 14:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
First rule of economics: There is no such thing as a free lunch. That means you can't create something out of thin air, like "jobs."
The government doesn't create jobs, it merely shuffles them around. It can take money (jobs) from the private sector, and spend the money to create jobs somewhere else. It can take money (jobs) from the future to create jobs in the present, in the form of debt.
This is where the keynesian voodoo kicks in, and people start claiming that these jobs that were simply transferred from one place to another are going to lead to more jobs that weren't transferred from somewhere else. By money being circulated they think that more money is somehow created out of thin air. No, what happens is people simply become comfortable enough to start taking on more debt, paving the way for the next bubble. We worship the bubble, we consider it the standard.
What they don't realize is that in the process of government transferring money and jobs around, there are countless inefficiencies that are created, such as employing people whose sole purpose is to shuffle things around, and people who are employed to do paperwork. In other words, the process of transferring jobs itself costs jobs that would have produced actual goods that would have raised the standard of living. Let's not forget that the jobs the government actually creates through it's transfers are severely less efficient than those in the private sector. From no bid contracts, to waste, to corruption, to exorbitant public employee pay and benefits and pensions. I've seen it all first hand, because I've worked in the public sector. The jobs that are created produce significantly less than the jobs that could have remained in the private sector.
And let's not forget at the end of all of this, that it is undeniably immoral to take money and jobs from generations that have no say in the matter. It's nothing more than stealing from our children. We justify it by saying "we can afford it." We should be saying, "they can afford it." And yet, we can't even afford it now.
Please don't lecture me on the keynesian voodoo, I've heard it all before. The only way TRUE growth can occur, meaning not artificial growth that will be erased in the next recession (market correction), is to all allow the correction to complete without adding additional government inefficiency which merely serves to placate the masses who are ignorant of economics that the government is "doing something to create jobs." In line with your request that I avoid a counterargument I will simply state that I disagree. However it may be more conducive to debate if you don't follow your string of poorly articulated, barely relevant and entirely unsubstantiated claims with a plea not to have someone explain the opposing arguments. TRUE (capitals so you know it's actually true). except how he's right. government doesn't produce anything. It only wastes resources to redistribute things. government can't create wealth, because money isn't wealth, money with no products only creates inflation, the total wealth can only be increased via production, which the private sector does in the most efficient way when it's unregulated Jobs are a result of favourable conditions and favourable conditions certainly can be created through spending. Things like matter and energy can't be created, they can only be moved around and converted. The poster I responded to claimed that wealth worked in the same way and that therefore meant that jobs (which he seems to equate with wealth due to some middle step which he didn't bother to explain) couldn't be created. But that logic can't be applied to jobs because a job is a state of economic activity activity, not matter, nor energy, nor wealth.
Government jobs aren't created through economic activity. They are created by expropriating wealth from economic activity. That's the difference, and why I equate government jobs with money.
Expropriating wealth from the private sector will reduce jobs in the private sector, which is why I stated that government can only transfer jobs, not create them.
|
United States43277 Posts
On September 12 2011 15:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 15:21 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 15:09 Kiarip wrote:On September 12 2011 15:01 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 14:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
First rule of economics: There is no such thing as a free lunch. That means you can't create something out of thin air, like "jobs."
The government doesn't create jobs, it merely shuffles them around. It can take money (jobs) from the private sector, and spend the money to create jobs somewhere else. It can take money (jobs) from the future to create jobs in the present, in the form of debt.
This is where the keynesian voodoo kicks in, and people start claiming that these jobs that were simply transferred from one place to another are going to lead to more jobs that weren't transferred from somewhere else. By money being circulated they think that more money is somehow created out of thin air. No, what happens is people simply become comfortable enough to start taking on more debt, paving the way for the next bubble. We worship the bubble, we consider it the standard.
What they don't realize is that in the process of government transferring money and jobs around, there are countless inefficiencies that are created, such as employing people whose sole purpose is to shuffle things around, and people who are employed to do paperwork. In other words, the process of transferring jobs itself costs jobs that would have produced actual goods that would have raised the standard of living. Let's not forget that the jobs the government actually creates through it's transfers are severely less efficient than those in the private sector. From no bid contracts, to waste, to corruption, to exorbitant public employee pay and benefits and pensions. I've seen it all first hand, because I've worked in the public sector. The jobs that are created produce significantly less than the jobs that could have remained in the private sector.
And let's not forget at the end of all of this, that it is undeniably immoral to take money and jobs from generations that have no say in the matter. It's nothing more than stealing from our children. We justify it by saying "we can afford it." We should be saying, "they can afford it." And yet, we can't even afford it now.
Please don't lecture me on the keynesian voodoo, I've heard it all before. The only way TRUE growth can occur, meaning not artificial growth that will be erased in the next recession (market correction), is to all allow the correction to complete without adding additional government inefficiency which merely serves to placate the masses who are ignorant of economics that the government is "doing something to create jobs." In line with your request that I avoid a counterargument I will simply state that I disagree. However it may be more conducive to debate if you don't follow your string of poorly articulated, barely relevant and entirely unsubstantiated claims with a plea not to have someone explain the opposing arguments. TRUE (capitals so you know it's actually true). except how he's right. government doesn't produce anything. It only wastes resources to redistribute things. government can't create wealth, because money isn't wealth, money with no products only creates inflation, the total wealth can only be increased via production, which the private sector does in the most efficient way when it's unregulated Jobs are a result of favourable conditions and favourable conditions certainly can be created through spending. Things like matter and energy can't be created, they can only be moved around and converted. The poster I responded to claimed that wealth worked in the same way and that therefore meant that jobs (which he seems to equate with wealth due to some middle step which he didn't bother to explain) couldn't be created. But that logic can't be applied to jobs because a job is a state of economic activity activity, not matter, nor energy, nor wealth. Government jobs aren't created through economic activity. They are created by expropriating wealth from economic activity. That's the difference, and why I equate government jobs with money.
This assumes that all government jobs are akin to digging holes and filling them in again and that the only way the government can create jobs is by directly employing people for an indefinite period. Neither of those are valid assumptions. Examples such as infrastructure projects have real economic value, get people who were previously not economically active back into work, give people valuable skills and create new opportunities for the private sector to exploit.
|
On September 12 2011 15:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 15:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 12 2011 15:21 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 15:09 Kiarip wrote:On September 12 2011 15:01 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 14:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
First rule of economics: There is no such thing as a free lunch. That means you can't create something out of thin air, like "jobs."
The government doesn't create jobs, it merely shuffles them around. It can take money (jobs) from the private sector, and spend the money to create jobs somewhere else. It can take money (jobs) from the future to create jobs in the present, in the form of debt.
This is where the keynesian voodoo kicks in, and people start claiming that these jobs that were simply transferred from one place to another are going to lead to more jobs that weren't transferred from somewhere else. By money being circulated they think that more money is somehow created out of thin air. No, what happens is people simply become comfortable enough to start taking on more debt, paving the way for the next bubble. We worship the bubble, we consider it the standard.
What they don't realize is that in the process of government transferring money and jobs around, there are countless inefficiencies that are created, such as employing people whose sole purpose is to shuffle things around, and people who are employed to do paperwork. In other words, the process of transferring jobs itself costs jobs that would have produced actual goods that would have raised the standard of living. Let's not forget that the jobs the government actually creates through it's transfers are severely less efficient than those in the private sector. From no bid contracts, to waste, to corruption, to exorbitant public employee pay and benefits and pensions. I've seen it all first hand, because I've worked in the public sector. The jobs that are created produce significantly less than the jobs that could have remained in the private sector.
And let's not forget at the end of all of this, that it is undeniably immoral to take money and jobs from generations that have no say in the matter. It's nothing more than stealing from our children. We justify it by saying "we can afford it." We should be saying, "they can afford it." And yet, we can't even afford it now.
Please don't lecture me on the keynesian voodoo, I've heard it all before. The only way TRUE growth can occur, meaning not artificial growth that will be erased in the next recession (market correction), is to all allow the correction to complete without adding additional government inefficiency which merely serves to placate the masses who are ignorant of economics that the government is "doing something to create jobs." In line with your request that I avoid a counterargument I will simply state that I disagree. However it may be more conducive to debate if you don't follow your string of poorly articulated, barely relevant and entirely unsubstantiated claims with a plea not to have someone explain the opposing arguments. TRUE (capitals so you know it's actually true). except how he's right. government doesn't produce anything. It only wastes resources to redistribute things. government can't create wealth, because money isn't wealth, money with no products only creates inflation, the total wealth can only be increased via production, which the private sector does in the most efficient way when it's unregulated Jobs are a result of favourable conditions and favourable conditions certainly can be created through spending. Things like matter and energy can't be created, they can only be moved around and converted. The poster I responded to claimed that wealth worked in the same way and that therefore meant that jobs (which he seems to equate with wealth due to some middle step which he didn't bother to explain) couldn't be created. But that logic can't be applied to jobs because a job is a state of economic activity activity, not matter, nor energy, nor wealth. Government jobs aren't created through economic activity. They are created by expropriating wealth from economic activity. That's the difference, and why I equate government jobs with money. This assumes that all government jobs are akin to digging holes and filling them in again and that the only way the government can create jobs is by directly employing people for an indefinite period. Neither of those are valid assumptions. Examples such as infrastructure projects have real economic value, get people who were previously not economically active back into work, give people valuable skills and create new opportunities for the private sector to exploit.
I never said that the money simply disappears when a government job is created. I said repeatedly that it is merely a TRANSFER of jobs from one place to another, with added inefficiency.
Maybe you should reread my original post because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.
|
On September 12 2011 15:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 15:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 12 2011 15:21 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 15:09 Kiarip wrote:On September 12 2011 15:01 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 14:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
First rule of economics: There is no such thing as a free lunch. That means you can't create something out of thin air, like "jobs."
The government doesn't create jobs, it merely shuffles them around. It can take money (jobs) from the private sector, and spend the money to create jobs somewhere else. It can take money (jobs) from the future to create jobs in the present, in the form of debt.
This is where the keynesian voodoo kicks in, and people start claiming that these jobs that were simply transferred from one place to another are going to lead to more jobs that weren't transferred from somewhere else. By money being circulated they think that more money is somehow created out of thin air. No, what happens is people simply become comfortable enough to start taking on more debt, paving the way for the next bubble. We worship the bubble, we consider it the standard.
What they don't realize is that in the process of government transferring money and jobs around, there are countless inefficiencies that are created, such as employing people whose sole purpose is to shuffle things around, and people who are employed to do paperwork. In other words, the process of transferring jobs itself costs jobs that would have produced actual goods that would have raised the standard of living. Let's not forget that the jobs the government actually creates through it's transfers are severely less efficient than those in the private sector. From no bid contracts, to waste, to corruption, to exorbitant public employee pay and benefits and pensions. I've seen it all first hand, because I've worked in the public sector. The jobs that are created produce significantly less than the jobs that could have remained in the private sector.
And let's not forget at the end of all of this, that it is undeniably immoral to take money and jobs from generations that have no say in the matter. It's nothing more than stealing from our children. We justify it by saying "we can afford it." We should be saying, "they can afford it." And yet, we can't even afford it now.
Please don't lecture me on the keynesian voodoo, I've heard it all before. The only way TRUE growth can occur, meaning not artificial growth that will be erased in the next recession (market correction), is to all allow the correction to complete without adding additional government inefficiency which merely serves to placate the masses who are ignorant of economics that the government is "doing something to create jobs." In line with your request that I avoid a counterargument I will simply state that I disagree. However it may be more conducive to debate if you don't follow your string of poorly articulated, barely relevant and entirely unsubstantiated claims with a plea not to have someone explain the opposing arguments. TRUE (capitals so you know it's actually true). except how he's right. government doesn't produce anything. It only wastes resources to redistribute things. government can't create wealth, because money isn't wealth, money with no products only creates inflation, the total wealth can only be increased via production, which the private sector does in the most efficient way when it's unregulated Jobs are a result of favourable conditions and favourable conditions certainly can be created through spending. Things like matter and energy can't be created, they can only be moved around and converted. The poster I responded to claimed that wealth worked in the same way and that therefore meant that jobs (which he seems to equate with wealth due to some middle step which he didn't bother to explain) couldn't be created. But that logic can't be applied to jobs because a job is a state of economic activity activity, not matter, nor energy, nor wealth. Government jobs aren't created through economic activity. They are created by expropriating wealth from economic activity. That's the difference, and why I equate government jobs with money. This assumes that all government jobs are akin to digging holes and filling them in again and that the only way the government can create jobs is by directly employing people for an indefinite period. Neither of those are valid assumptions. Examples such as infrastructure projects have real economic value, get people who were previously not economically active back into work, give people valuable skills and create new opportunities for the private sector to exploit.
Did kwark just nano successfully against a wall of vapid talking points?
crazy brits!
|
United States43277 Posts
On September 12 2011 15:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 15:34 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 15:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 12 2011 15:21 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 15:09 Kiarip wrote:On September 12 2011 15:01 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 14:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
First rule of economics: There is no such thing as a free lunch. That means you can't create something out of thin air, like "jobs."
The government doesn't create jobs, it merely shuffles them around. It can take money (jobs) from the private sector, and spend the money to create jobs somewhere else. It can take money (jobs) from the future to create jobs in the present, in the form of debt.
This is where the keynesian voodoo kicks in, and people start claiming that these jobs that were simply transferred from one place to another are going to lead to more jobs that weren't transferred from somewhere else. By money being circulated they think that more money is somehow created out of thin air. No, what happens is people simply become comfortable enough to start taking on more debt, paving the way for the next bubble. We worship the bubble, we consider it the standard.
What they don't realize is that in the process of government transferring money and jobs around, there are countless inefficiencies that are created, such as employing people whose sole purpose is to shuffle things around, and people who are employed to do paperwork. In other words, the process of transferring jobs itself costs jobs that would have produced actual goods that would have raised the standard of living. Let's not forget that the jobs the government actually creates through it's transfers are severely less efficient than those in the private sector. From no bid contracts, to waste, to corruption, to exorbitant public employee pay and benefits and pensions. I've seen it all first hand, because I've worked in the public sector. The jobs that are created produce significantly less than the jobs that could have remained in the private sector.
And let's not forget at the end of all of this, that it is undeniably immoral to take money and jobs from generations that have no say in the matter. It's nothing more than stealing from our children. We justify it by saying "we can afford it." We should be saying, "they can afford it." And yet, we can't even afford it now.
Please don't lecture me on the keynesian voodoo, I've heard it all before. The only way TRUE growth can occur, meaning not artificial growth that will be erased in the next recession (market correction), is to all allow the correction to complete without adding additional government inefficiency which merely serves to placate the masses who are ignorant of economics that the government is "doing something to create jobs." In line with your request that I avoid a counterargument I will simply state that I disagree. However it may be more conducive to debate if you don't follow your string of poorly articulated, barely relevant and entirely unsubstantiated claims with a plea not to have someone explain the opposing arguments. TRUE (capitals so you know it's actually true). except how he's right. government doesn't produce anything. It only wastes resources to redistribute things. government can't create wealth, because money isn't wealth, money with no products only creates inflation, the total wealth can only be increased via production, which the private sector does in the most efficient way when it's unregulated Jobs are a result of favourable conditions and favourable conditions certainly can be created through spending. Things like matter and energy can't be created, they can only be moved around and converted. The poster I responded to claimed that wealth worked in the same way and that therefore meant that jobs (which he seems to equate with wealth due to some middle step which he didn't bother to explain) couldn't be created. But that logic can't be applied to jobs because a job is a state of economic activity activity, not matter, nor energy, nor wealth. Government jobs aren't created through economic activity. They are created by expropriating wealth from economic activity. That's the difference, and why I equate government jobs with money. This assumes that all government jobs are akin to digging holes and filling them in again and that the only way the government can create jobs is by directly employing people for an indefinite period. Neither of those are valid assumptions. Examples such as infrastructure projects have real economic value, get people who were previously not economically active back into work, give people valuable skills and create new opportunities for the private sector to exploit. I never said that the money simply disappears when a government job is created. I said repeatedly that it is merely a TRANSFER of jobs from one place to another, with added inefficiency. Maybe you should reread my original post because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.
The private sector creates jobs out of wealth all the time. It's called investment. The same inefficiency exists there too. It's called banking. The reason they do it, inefficiency and all, is because they intend to make a profit, ie wealth from jobs from wealth. Why is it that you view this as fine but assume that all public enterprises are doomed to be economically unproductive?
|
On September 12 2011 15:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 15:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 12 2011 15:34 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 15:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 12 2011 15:21 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 15:09 Kiarip wrote:On September 12 2011 15:01 KwarK wrote:On September 12 2011 14:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
First rule of economics: There is no such thing as a free lunch. That means you can't create something out of thin air, like "jobs."
The government doesn't create jobs, it merely shuffles them around. It can take money (jobs) from the private sector, and spend the money to create jobs somewhere else. It can take money (jobs) from the future to create jobs in the present, in the form of debt.
This is where the keynesian voodoo kicks in, and people start claiming that these jobs that were simply transferred from one place to another are going to lead to more jobs that weren't transferred from somewhere else. By money being circulated they think that more money is somehow created out of thin air. No, what happens is people simply become comfortable enough to start taking on more debt, paving the way for the next bubble. We worship the bubble, we consider it the standard.
What they don't realize is that in the process of government transferring money and jobs around, there are countless inefficiencies that are created, such as employing people whose sole purpose is to shuffle things around, and people who are employed to do paperwork. In other words, the process of transferring jobs itself costs jobs that would have produced actual goods that would have raised the standard of living. Let's not forget that the jobs the government actually creates through it's transfers are severely less efficient than those in the private sector. From no bid contracts, to waste, to corruption, to exorbitant public employee pay and benefits and pensions. I've seen it all first hand, because I've worked in the public sector. The jobs that are created produce significantly less than the jobs that could have remained in the private sector.
And let's not forget at the end of all of this, that it is undeniably immoral to take money and jobs from generations that have no say in the matter. It's nothing more than stealing from our children. We justify it by saying "we can afford it." We should be saying, "they can afford it." And yet, we can't even afford it now.
Please don't lecture me on the keynesian voodoo, I've heard it all before. The only way TRUE growth can occur, meaning not artificial growth that will be erased in the next recession (market correction), is to all allow the correction to complete without adding additional government inefficiency which merely serves to placate the masses who are ignorant of economics that the government is "doing something to create jobs." In line with your request that I avoid a counterargument I will simply state that I disagree. However it may be more conducive to debate if you don't follow your string of poorly articulated, barely relevant and entirely unsubstantiated claims with a plea not to have someone explain the opposing arguments. TRUE (capitals so you know it's actually true). except how he's right. government doesn't produce anything. It only wastes resources to redistribute things. government can't create wealth, because money isn't wealth, money with no products only creates inflation, the total wealth can only be increased via production, which the private sector does in the most efficient way when it's unregulated Jobs are a result of favourable conditions and favourable conditions certainly can be created through spending. Things like matter and energy can't be created, they can only be moved around and converted. The poster I responded to claimed that wealth worked in the same way and that therefore meant that jobs (which he seems to equate with wealth due to some middle step which he didn't bother to explain) couldn't be created. But that logic can't be applied to jobs because a job is a state of economic activity activity, not matter, nor energy, nor wealth. Government jobs aren't created through economic activity. They are created by expropriating wealth from economic activity. That's the difference, and why I equate government jobs with money. This assumes that all government jobs are akin to digging holes and filling them in again and that the only way the government can create jobs is by directly employing people for an indefinite period. Neither of those are valid assumptions. Examples such as infrastructure projects have real economic value, get people who were previously not economically active back into work, give people valuable skills and create new opportunities for the private sector to exploit. I never said that the money simply disappears when a government job is created. I said repeatedly that it is merely a TRANSFER of jobs from one place to another, with added inefficiency. Maybe you should reread my original post because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. The private sector creates jobs out of wealth all the time. It's called investment. The same inefficiency exists there too. It's called banking. The reason they do it, inefficiency and all, is because they intend to make a profit, ie wealth from jobs from wealth. Why is it that you view this as fine but assume that all public enterprises are doomed to be economically unproductive?
I think the concept hes grasping at is the idea that that money must be spent to create jobs. By taxing and or having the government fill roles that could potentially be filled by private sector entities the government is just transferring capital from the private sector to create jobs at a ratio he feels to be less efficient than if the private sector just handled all the money to begin with.
The argument here against regulation is that that it inflates the cost per job ratio in the private sector thus reducing the total number of jobs that could be created with the same capital. Therefore clearing deregulating markets would cause more jobs created and allow for the supply side of the equation to be drastically increased with hopes that the demand side would follow because, hypothetically more people would be entering the workforce to also increase demand in a short lag interval.
This is what we call supply side economics and for various reasons its pretty silly. Granted arguments between supply and demand side economics often turn into the economic equivalent of what came first, the chicken or the egg. The micro level breakdown with supply side is that youre basically asking a company to increase production with the faith that they would be able to actually sell those units because everyone else will be hiring at the same time (thus expanding the market). Even if you do convince them to transfer said savings from tax breaks and deregulation savings many supply side economists often 'forget' that generally in most market classes you can expect between 10-50% of the savings to be transferred as pure profit to increase PMI for said company. In addition most supply side economists will over look any tertiary consequences of induced damages to the economy as a whole as a result from market failures of eliminating said regulations. Which leads to a whole new set of market misconceptions.
The prime of the misconceptions is that as the profit is transferred to stock holders, more stocks will be purchased with the proceeds (or as they think further investment in the private sector) which on paper sounds good, till you realized that the vast majority of stock purchases are actually from already issued stock, as in the proceeds aren't actually going to a company to invest in their operations, the wealth begins to accumulate and stagnate in areas that don't actually create many if any jobs. This is why when you cut the taxes for top tier of americans you rarely get jobs and continue to just widen the gap between the rich and and poor and shrink the middle class.
|
United States43277 Posts
Sir, beneath your Texan drawl you are way smarter than me.
|
On September 12 2011 16:24 KwarK wrote:
Sir, beneath your Texan drawl you are way smarter than me.
Is my accent really that noticeable as texan? I try to avoid it, though I always assumed it rears out whenever I say y'all, which is just too useful to avoid.
|
The amount of fixed pie belief going on around here is astounding. Economics DOES NOT WORK as a fixed pie. there is true growth and it can be created through government intervention and the private sector. The dogmatic favor shown by the anti government ground is astounding 
Edit: abominare, thank you for the excellent write up. i was too lazy to actually go over the whole markets are efficient myth over and over again. With game theory, informational asymetries and numerous biases etc. thrown into the mix in addition to numerous externalities, arguing strictily and indiscriminately for deregulation is childish and counterproductive.
|
Fixed pie belief explains the whole "I got mine, fuck you!" attitude that so often permeates supply side economics supporters.
|
Investors are sitting on their money due to the crisis and the unemployment is high. More money to the people, that's going to result in purchases which result in demand which give investors an opportunity to invest their money.
|
I don't understand why people still buy the argument "ooh, there's uncertainty.....and....regulation! We won't spend anything!" People like Mitt Romney criticize the Dodd Frank bill for having ambiguous regulations that have thrown uncertainty into the markets, when honestly, it was the Republican party that watered down the more specific regulations due to the special interests. >.>
But on the topic of regulation, I think it's too superficial an argument to say that the regulatory environment in this country is making things difficult (and its especially doubtful to me when you bring in the EPA and Obamacare). Corporate profits have been rising (while incomes have not). The corporate tax rate has been the lowest since the 1950s.
In my opinion, the reason why the economy isn't doing better is because everyone is getting rid of their debts. Maybe not the investment banks that started the mess, but definitely middle income households who saw trillions of dollars in wealth just disappear after the mortgage crash.
Homes have lost over 40% of their values in the last 5 years, leaving people with houses worth less than when they first bought them. Over 12 million homes are underwater (I think that's the right statistic). Mortgage delinquencies are up.
What I'm getting at is this: private debt is a lingering problem. People don't spend money from tax cuts or stimulus checks because they're too busy paying down their debts (which would explain why the banking industry rebounded a bit faster than others) on their mortgages, credit cards, etc.
So this whole idea that the recession is being prolonged by uncertainty and regulation is just bad analysis to me. Investors are still investing, albeit in safe resources like gold (I have never seen so many gold commercials in the last few years. I expect a gold bubble?), tech, and the US dollar, but they're still investing. Treasury yields are down to 2%, which suggests that our credit downgrade didn't mean much.
Until we get the average consumer out of his debt and then back to a position where he's comfortable spending money on other things, that's when jobs will be created. Companies aren't spending money on jobs because, ultimately, they don't need to.
Nobody is buying their products anyway. 
|
Government spending can stimulate job creation. However, it is wildly inefficient at doing so. This past July, Obama's economists concluded that the stimulus package "created or saved" 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion in stimulus money spent so far. That is $278,000 spent per job "created or saved."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf
Of course, the "created or saved" metric is facially absurd, so the real cost per job actually created is likely significantly higher. However, even being charitable, $278,000 per job "created or saved" is still incredibly wasteful.
|
On September 13 2011 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Government spending can stimulate job creation. However, it is wildly inefficient at doing so. This past July, Obama's economists concluded that the stimulus package "created or saved" 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion in stimulus money spent so far. That is $278,000 spent per job "created or saved." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdfOf course, the "created or saved" metric is facially absurd, so the real cost per job actually created is likely significantly higher. However, even being charitable, $278,000 per job "created or saved" is still incredibly wasteful.
Could you please explain why the created or saved metric is absurd and why you believe the real cost per job is higher?
|
On September 13 2011 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Government spending can stimulate job creation. However, it is wildly inefficient at doing so. This past July, Obama's economists concluded that the stimulus package "created or saved" 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion in stimulus money spent so far. That is $278,000 spent per job "created or saved." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdfOf course, the "created or saved" metric is facially absurd, so the real cost per job actually created is likely significantly higher. However, even being charitable, $278,000 per job "created or saved" is still incredibly wasteful.
It is not necessarily government spending in general that is inefficient; but in your particular example it was - Assuming that the 278k$ is much more than a created/saved job pays, the question is: who got the rest of the money? imho that question answers why this was so ineffective...
|
How to lie with statistics:
Step 1) Get the price of stimulus spending which includes labor and materials.
Step 2) Get the number of jobs saved.
Step 3) Divide spending of labor+materials by number of jobs saved.
Step 4) Feel good about yourself
|
On September 13 2011 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Government spending can stimulate job creation. However, it is wildly inefficient at doing so. This past July, Obama's economists concluded that the stimulus package "created or saved" 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion in stimulus money spent so far. That is $278,000 spent per job "created or saved." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdfOf course, the "created or saved" metric is facially absurd, so the real cost per job actually created is likely significantly higher. However, even being charitable, $278,000 per job "created or saved" is still incredibly wasteful.
There's a lot of ways to look at those numbers. On one hand, you have the "$278,000 per job" number. On the other hand, you have the insane overhead costs associated with simply enacting programs. Upon that, there is added value to whatever job they were doing. If they were simply digging and filling holes, you would have a stronger point. You expand the money spent, expand the scope, and the "cost per job" is likely to go down.
You also can't discount the amount of money saved or gained from those people given jobs. Even government workers pay taxes (local, state, and federal), after all. Let's crunch some numbers:
2.4 million jobs, median wage is $26,000, payroll tax 6.2%, income tax at ~13% (10% up to $8350, 15% rest)
You get a net income of $11,646,480,000, or roughly $11 billion. That's about 2% of the bill paid for itself in a single year. We could also calculate the amount that would have been spent in unemployment benefits, but I don't have time right now. Either way, the number molest from the original economic report is grossly inaccurate.
|
On September 13 2011 00:18 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Government spending can stimulate job creation. However, it is wildly inefficient at doing so. This past July, Obama's economists concluded that the stimulus package "created or saved" 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion in stimulus money spent so far. That is $278,000 spent per job "created or saved." http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdfOf course, the "created or saved" metric is facially absurd, so the real cost per job actually created is likely significantly higher. However, even being charitable, $278,000 per job "created or saved" is still incredibly wasteful. Could you please explain why the created or saved metric is absurd and why you believe the real cost per job is higher?
The problem with the "created or saved" metric is that it's entirely speculative because of the "jobs saved" component. You can't prove why or how a job "was saved." I may be wrong, but I don't believe that anyone ever talked about "created or saved" as a real economic metric until the Obama administration. Cynically, it looks like a political artifice that was created to help Obama and the stimulus package look good.
I believe that the real cost per job is probably higher because the "jobs saved" component of the metric is almost certainly inflated. Again, this isn't really something you can prove, which is why the metric is problematic in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
