Jobs vs. Work

maineman said:
are you suggesting that building highway bridges does not create employment and economic activity?
Click to expand...

See the thread title. Jobs vs. Work! It does create work, but work is different than jobs. People do get a paycheck, but the money is coming from the government, which is basically the taxes from those checks. See my analogy of taking buckets of water from the deep end of the pool and pouring them into the shallow end, in an attempt to raise the water level. Yes, some things are being purchased, concrete, steel, etc... but again, it is being purchased by the government with money we borrowed from China. Real jobs and economic growth are not happening, it is a temporary illusion.

Contrast this with real economic growth through capitalist expansion. A corporation receives some tax break or incentive, which allows them to justify building a new plant or expanding into another state, where in turn, they create new jobs to fill the various new positions from the expansion. Instead of the jobs being funded by government, they are funded by profits from the capitalism. This results in more income taxes, and more corporate taxes being paid in, as well as a real stimulation of the economy.

What liberals are doing now, is equivalent to painting your house when you're laid off, to increase your net worth. Yes, it increased the value of your home, which increased your net worth, but the money could have been better spent, and it was a bird-brained way to 'fix' the problem of being laid off.
 
Dungheap said:
Even assuming you are correct, inefficiencies don't really matter from a stimulus perspective. I mean, WWII (and most all wars for that matter) was terribly inefficient from an economic perspective (it is an inefficient allocation of resources to build things just to have them be blown up) but it sure served to stimulate the economy.
Click to expand...

Wars are a completely different dynamic. For one, you have a huge chunk of the working population leaving the country, which reduces demand and allows supply to be in abundance for a period of time. Greater supply than demand always results in lower prices, which encourages purchases and economic growth. Here, you are increasing demand while supply stays relatively the same, and that creates inflation.

Inefficiencies do matter when you can't afford them, and we can't afford them.
 
Dixie said:
Wars are a completely different dynamic. For one, you have a huge chunk of the working population leaving the country, which reduces demand and allows supply to be in abundance for a period of time. Greater supply than demand always results in lower prices, which encourages purchases and economic growth. Here, you are increasing demand while supply stays relatively the same, and that creates inflation.
.....
Click to expand...
I dunno about this. You're still supplying the population that is out-of-country. And a lot of the stuff is expensive and gets destroyed quickly.

I think the economic advantage comes from selling your stuff to your allies, like the US did before they entered WW2.
 
Dixie said:
Wars are a completely different dynamic. For one, you have a huge chunk of the working population leaving the country, which reduces demand and allows supply to be in abundance for a period of time. Greater supply than demand always results in lower prices, which encourages purchases and economic growth. Here, you are increasing demand while supply stays relatively the same, and that creates inflation.

Inefficiencies do matter when you can't afford them, and we can't afford them.
Click to expand...

That's called deflation, son, and deflation is more damaging than inflation.
 
Dixie said:
See the thread title. Jobs vs. Work! It does create work, but work is different than jobs. People do get a paycheck, but the money is coming from the government, which is basically the taxes from those checks. See my analogy of taking buckets of water from the deep end of the pool and pouring them into the shallow end, in an attempt to raise the water level. Yes, some things are being purchased, concrete, steel, etc... but again, it is being purchased by the government with money we borrowed from China. Real jobs and economic growth are not happening, it is a temporary illusion.

Contrast this with real economic growth through capitalist expansion. A corporation receives some tax break or incentive, which allows them to justify building a new plant or expanding into another state, where in turn, they create new jobs to fill the various new positions from the expansion. Instead of the jobs being funded by government, they are funded by profits from the capitalism. This results in more income taxes, and more corporate taxes being paid in, as well as a real stimulation of the economy.

What liberals are doing now, is equivalent to painting your house when you're laid off, to increase your net worth. Yes, it increased the value of your home, which increased your net worth, but the money could have been better spent, and it was a bird-brained way to 'fix' the problem of being laid off.
Click to expand...


how do you think roads get built?
 
Southern Man said:
I dunno about this. You're still supplying the population that is out-of-country. And a lot of the stuff is expensive and gets destroyed quickly.

I think the economic advantage comes from selling your stuff to your allies, like the US did before they entered WW2.
Click to expand...

Still, you are comparing apples with tangerines. What happened during WWII has absolutely nothing to do with 2009 America, we're not the same country. My only point is, wartime economic growth is not comparable to government funded socialist policy. But even IF you want to make that comparison, wars are temporary as well, whatever economic stimulation they create, doesn't last. Also, there has never been a time of war in which America ran a budget surplus. In fact, much of our national debt is the result of previous wartime spending.
 
ib1yysguy said:
That's called deflation, son, and deflation is more damaging than inflation.
Click to expand...

LOL... Oh well... I guess we should be grateful to libs we're going to have inflation! Damn, I just don't know if we could have handled lower prices much longer! It's a fucking good thing you guys came along when you did! :rolleyes:
 
Dixie said:
Still, you are comparing apples with tangerines. What happened during WWII has absolutely nothing to do with 2009 America, we're not the same country. My only point is, wartime economic growth is not comparable to government funded socialist policy. But even IF you want to make that comparison, wars are temporary as well, whatever economic stimulation they create, doesn't last. Also, there has never been a time of war in which America ran a budget surplus. In fact, much of our national debt is the result of previous wartime spending.
Click to expand...


You don't know your ass from your elbow, son.
 
Dixie said:
1) Yes it does. You are just stubborn and foolish.

2.) It's been shown how it does, in fact, my numbers are probably very conservative.

3.) The Government can never spend money to stimulate the economy better than consumers, because consumers always get more for their money. Government is woefully inefficient and full of graft, and much of the money would never be seen by the economy. There is no empirical evidence to show that building bridges and repaving the highways is any more effective at stimulating the economy than buying big screen tv's and new cars. Additionally, you are purposely creating an unemployment catastrophe by creating temporary work to replace lost jobs, and this will trump any temporary economic benefit of such a program.

You argue that giving the tax payer the money will only result in them paying down debt and saving, but would that not help "bailout" the banking and lending industry? Would that not cause interest rates to go down? Would that not encourage investment? People paying off debts, like their overdue mortgages... wouldn't that help "bailout" the housing industry? People paying their overdue car payments... wouldn't that help "bailout" the auto industry? With all of these people fat and happy, free of debt, and having nice little savings account cushions... they wouldn't be more inclined to make retail purchases? Go on vacations? SPEND their money from their REAL jobs? When all of that started happening, it wouldn't spark confidence in the market?

You see, the problem here is, you've been fed your daily dose of liberal koolaid, and it tells you to stand up and argue like a son-of-a-bitch for this farce and sham of a spending bill, and toss aside any rationality or common sense. That's exactly what you plan to do, by God! You will argue with me, you will make fun of me, you will insult me, but you won't stimulate the economy with socialism.
Click to expand...


1) you really are a moron. In NO scenario does your $250k per taxpayer work. None. Because it is 25 times as large as the current package. That means your interest is 25 times as large. Where the hell are you getting this money from?

2) No, you have not shown one single piece of evidence that it will work. On the other hand, I have shown you why your idiocy is just that. Stick to the apples to apples comparison. That is where you might find a valid argument.

3) As for the spending... as I stated, it depends on where it is spent. If it is spent creating temporary jobs builiding infrastructure, then that is the most effective use of the money. Why? Because it uses labor when the labor market is loose and will start to shed the jobs at a time when the labor market should be tightening. The money that is put into place can still go towards buying those TVs etc.... It is not socialism for the government to create jobs moron. Calling me a liberal is simply idiotic. I am fiscally conservative, yet intelligent enough to understand that when spending ceases on the private side, temporary spending by the government can be necessary. You should take economics classes sometimes.... it may help you out.

As for the payments to mortgages etc... that you mention. Yes, it would stop gap those problems.... but it is a short term effect. It does little to solve the long term problems. It does not have the sustainability. 8-10k may help people for several months... but if they are without jobs, they are not going to be fat and happy.
 
Dixie said:
See the thread title. Jobs vs. Work! It does create work, but work is different than jobs. People do get a paycheck, but the money is coming from the government, which is basically the taxes from those checks. See my analogy of taking buckets of water from the deep end of the pool and pouring them into the shallow end, in an attempt to raise the water level. Yes, some things are being purchased, concrete, steel, etc... but again, it is being purchased by the government with money we borrowed from China. Real jobs and economic growth are not happening, it is a temporary illusion.

Contrast this with real economic growth through capitalist expansion. A corporation receives some tax break or incentive, which allows them to justify building a new plant or expanding into another state, where in turn, they create new jobs to fill the various new positions from the expansion. Instead of the jobs being funded by government, they are funded by profits from the capitalism. This results in more income taxes, and more corporate taxes being paid in, as well as a real stimulation of the economy.

What liberals are doing now, is equivalent to painting your house when you're laid off, to increase your net worth. Yes, it increased the value of your home, which increased your net worth, but the money could have been better spent, and it was a bird-brained way to 'fix' the problem of being laid off.
Click to expand...

Tell us.... where does the money come from that provides for the tax breaks or incentives? Could it be the government? You really need to take an economics class.
 
Dixie said:
LOL... Oh well... I guess we should be grateful to libs we're going to have inflation! Damn, I just don't know if we could have handled lower prices much longer! It's a fucking good thing you guys came along when you did! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


You are aware that deflation is worse for the economy than inflation don't you?
 
Inflation gives you higher prices. It also gives you higher wages.

Same thing for deflation.

Too much inflation is bad for the economy, but ANY deflation is AWFUL for the economy. Trust me, we are NOT heading into deflation. This economic situation is a lot more simialar to what happened in the great depression, where we had double digit deflation for a couple of years, than the stagflation of the late 70's.

Dixie, you really don't know much about the good or bad effects of deflation and inflation. But you've only experienced inflation I your lifetime (and you've never looked up the history on them), so I doubt you really understand how horrible it is. All of our worst depressions have been accompanied by deflation.
 
It is not socialism for the government to create jobs moron.
Click to expand...

The government isn't creating jobs, they are creating work, moron. I am all for government doing something to create jobs, real jobs, which will be around long after the stimulus money runs out. You do that through the private sector and capitalist enterprise, not through government funded socialist mandate.

Yes, it would stop gap those problems.... but it is a short term effect. It does little to solve the long term problems. It does not have the sustainability. 8-10k may help people for several months... but if they are without jobs, they are not going to be fat and happy.
Click to expand...

Is this infrastructure rebuild going to be permanent or something? Are we going to be back in a few years for a few more trillion dollars to keep the jobs going? It seems to be your assumption that we can build a few highway bridges, and all our freakin' economic problems are solved! Everybody will forever have a job, and we will live in a world of new bridges and daisies, with money running out our ass! Whereas, if we just gave taxpayers the money, well... they would all blow it on ripple and drugs and be begging on the streets again in a few weeks. You do realize, not everyone is unemployed, right?

Tell us.... where does the money come from that provides for the tax breaks or incentives? Could it be the government? You really need to take an economics class.
Click to expand...

Well, it comes from budget cuts to funding of things like grants to study the plight of baby seals, the habitat of the wombat, and researching the possibility of extraterrestrial life. I think we have plenty of areas we can cut government spending on enough, to offer some incentives to business to create new jobs. And I HAVE taken economics classes, but it's very obvious you haven't!

You are aware that deflation is worse for the economy than inflation don't you?
Click to expand...

It depends on why there is deflation. I wouldn't say deflation itself is a bad thing. What may cause deflation, could be bad for the economy, but for the most part... lower prices for the consumer is a good thing. But I have to give you points for having the balls to actually argue a case for inflation! I never thought I would live to see the day pinheads would actually try to convince us that inflation is a good thing, and we should encourage it! Imagine that? All those Carter years of the "Misery Index" were just a figment of our imagination, I guess... huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top