Government does not create jobs

[PeterS]

The market creates the jobs. Of course government actions and policies can help the free market private sector create more jobs.
Allowing me to keep more of the $ I MAKE in the 2 businesses I own would be a good start for job creation. Sending my $ to DC is the worst thing that could happen for any job creation on my end.
We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots.

Then if job creation is our goal we should eliminate taxation and therefore government. Praise Jesus and bring on the jobs!!!

 

[Oddball]

The market creates the jobs. Of course government actions and policies can help the free market private sector create more jobs.
Allowing me to keep more of the $ I MAKE in the 2 businesses I own would be a good start for job creation. Sending my $ to DC is the worst thing that could happen for any job creation on my end.
We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots.

Good. How many teachers and policemen are you going to hire?

Schools could/should be run and teachers paid via the private sector.

Robert Nozick had the model for police, fire and EMS figured out a long time ago. Ideal model?...No. But perfection and Utopia cannot ever be options anyways.

 

[Oddball]

At least 24% of those working work either directly or indirectly for the govt. ie they are paid with tax dollars.

IOW, no fewer than 24% of potential jobs in the private sector have been destroyed.

 

[PeterS]

At least 24% of those working work either directly or indirectly for the govt. ie they are paid with tax dollars.

IOW, no fewer than 24% of potential jobs in the private sector have been destroyed.

And we should care? If you look at the economy purely as circular flow it doesn't mean squat if a job is created in the public or private sector-both would contribute equally to volume and velocity and therefore economic growth. If you want a private police or fire department convince others and create the fricking thing but with respect to the economy your actions don't mean a flip...

 

[Dr Gregg]

The gov't can help create jobs, as well as the market creating jobs. It's not one or the other, or a black and white answer, but varying levels of complexity, so its stupid to make definitive claims that "market does" without all the other factors that go into it.

 

[Oddball]

At least 24% of those working work either directly or indirectly for the govt. ie they are paid with tax dollars.

IOW, no fewer than 24% of potential jobs in the private sector have been destroyed.

And we should care? If you look at the economy purely as circular flow it doesn't mean squat if a job is created in the public or private sector-both would contribute equally to volume and velocity and therefore economic growth. If you want a private police or fire department convince others and create the fricking thing but with respect to the economy your actions don't mean a flip...

Because private sector jobs involve the creation of a product or service someone wants to freely purchase, and an overall increase in the general wealth of the nation....That's why you should care.

I defy you to point to anything a bureaucrat does, that increases the value of anything by so much as a penny.

 

[Gadawg73]

Exactly

 

[The Rabbi]

At least 24% of those working work either directly or indirectly for the govt. ie they are paid with tax dollars.

IOW, no fewer than 24% of potential jobs in the private sector have been destroyed.

And we should care? If you look at the economy purely as circular flow it doesn't mean squat if a job is created in the public or private sector-both would contribute equally to volume and velocity and therefore economic growth. If you want a private police or fire department convince others and create the fricking thing but with respect to the economy your actions don't mean a flip...

You probably also believe that government spending stimulates the economy and helps it prosper.
They are both fallacies.
Private spending creates wealth. Think of how much wealth Cisco has created in the last 20 years.
Gov't spending destroys wealth. How much money has been spent on transfer payments in that same time, with of course the toll for the troll?
They are not equal in any way shape or form.

 

[The Rabbi]

I defy you to point to anything a bureaucrat does, that increases the value of anything by so much as a penny.

Well, ATF keeps a ledger of fully automatic machine guns that are transferrable to private individuals. The ledger was closed to new entries in July 1986. The supply has remained fixed while demand has gone up.
So the value of machine guns keeps going up. A full-auto M-16 cost about $1500 in 1986 and today it is about $17,000.
But no, you are right. Aside from protecting patents and offering legal recourse and the like the vast majority of gov't spending does not increase the value of any good. And in many cases destroys it.

 

[Truthmatters]

how aburd to insist that cash infusions by ANY intity is treated differently by an economy.

The econony does not care where the money come from.

 

[The Rabbi]

how aburd to insist that cash infusions by ANY intity is treated differently by an economy.

The econony does not care where the money come from.

Well, yeah actually it does.

Where do you think "cash infusions" come from when provided by the government?

 

[PeterS]

IOW, no fewer than 24% of potential jobs in the private sector have been destroyed.

And we should care? If you look at the economy purely as circular flow it doesn't mean squat if a job is created in the public or private sector-both would contribute equally to volume and velocity and therefore economic growth. If you want a private police or fire department convince others and create the fricking thing but with respect to the economy your actions don't mean a flip...

Because private sector jobs involve the creation of a product or service someone wants to freely purchase, and an overall increase in the general wealth of the nation....That's why you should care.

I defy you to point to anything a bureaucrat does, that increases the value of anything by so much as a penny.

If you want freedom move to Haiti. The position you are taking is that infrastructure is worthless and yet you won't have wealth nor the ability to create wealth without it. And again, if you want your own fire and police departments or private government then do it. Stop whining about what is being taken from you when you sit on your ass and do nothing to convince others that what you say is better.

 

[Dr Gregg]

IOW, no fewer than 24% of potential jobs in the private sector have been destroyed.

And we should care? If you look at the economy purely as circular flow it doesn't mean squat if a job is created in the public or private sector-both would contribute equally to volume and velocity and therefore economic growth. If you want a private police or fire department convince others and create the fricking thing but with respect to the economy your actions don't mean a flip...

You probably also believe that government spending stimulates the economy and helps it prosper.
They are both fallacies.
Private spending creates wealth. Think of how much wealth Cisco has created in the last 20 years.
Gov't spending destroys wealth. How much money has been spent on transfer payments in that same time, with of course the toll for the troll?
They are not equal in any way shape or form.

Really? So all the technology and innovations that came about thanks to gov't funding of research has not lead to great wealth? all those biotech/pharm companies that spun off from gov't funded research don't exist? The products that were licensed to other companies which was developed to market didn't come from gov't spending?

LIke I said, its not black and white, and its completely simple minded to say those things when there are a myriad of factors contributing to the economy. f so the market and gov't spending help the economy. Gov't helps in having an educated workforce, and funds research leading to innovation.

 

[Oddball]

And we should care? If you look at the economy purely as circular flow it doesn't mean squat if a job is created in the public or private sector-both would contribute equally to volume and velocity and therefore economic growth. If you want a private police or fire department convince others and create the fricking thing but with respect to the economy your actions don't mean a flip...

Because private sector jobs involve the creation of a product or service someone wants to freely purchase, and an overall increase in the general wealth of the nation....That's why you should care.

I defy you to point to anything a bureaucrat does, that increases the value of anything by so much as a penny.

If you want freedom move to Haiti. The position you are taking is that infrastructure is worthless and yet you won't have wealth nor the ability to create wealth without it. And again, if you want your own fire and police departments or private government then do it. Stop whining about what is being taken from you when you sit on your ass and do nothing to convince others that what you say is better.

So, you can't refute the economic concept and now have to make it all about me.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!

Thanks for playing...Johnny has a case of Bardahl for you as a parting gift.

 

[PeterS]

how aburd to insist that cash infusions by ANY intity is treated differently by an economy.

The econony does not care where the money come from.

Well, yeah actually it does.

Where do you think "cash infusions" come from when provided by the government?

So tell us and tell us why the economy cares?

 

[Oddball]

[
Really? So all the technology and innovations that came about thanks to gov't funding of research has not lead to great wealth? all those biotech/pharm companies that spun off from gov't funded research don't exist? The products that were licensed to other companies which was developed to market didn't come from gov't spending?

LIke I said, its not black and white, and its completely simple minded to say those things when there are a myriad of factors contributing to the economy. f so the market and gov't spending help the economy. Gov't helps in having an educated workforce, and funds research leading to innovation.

A standard-issue blending of non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc....Speaking of simple minded.

Just because someone used gubmint funding to make some discovery or another, doesn't automatically mean that the discovery wouldn't have been made at all.

 

[Gadawg73]

Government spending TAKES wealth. Wealth is earned. Government only TAKES wealth.
The government earns NOTHING.

 

[AllieBaba]

The market creates the jobs. Of course government actions and policies can help the free market private sector create more jobs.
Allowing me to keep more of the $ I MAKE in the 2 businesses I own would be a good start for job creation. Sending my $ to DC is the worst thing that could happen for any job creation on my end.
We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots.

Where did the millions of jobs in the US military come from? The couple thousand jobs in your school district? The dozens of jobs in your local law enforcement and fire department? Who created the jobs for whoever built the road in front of your house? Who created the job for the guy who delivered your mail?

This lame rightwing talking point needs to be taken out and shot.

There's no need for the military, schools, law enforcement, and firedepartments if the land is devoid of human life.

And to have human life, guess what? you have to have industry. You don't get government jobs and people follow...it's the other way around.

 

[Dr Gregg]

[
Really? So all the technology and innovations that came about thanks to gov't funding of research has not lead to great wealth? all those biotech/pharm companies that spun off from gov't funded research don't exist? The products that were licensed to other companies which was developed to market didn't come from gov't spending?

LIke I said, its not black and white, and its completely simple minded to say those things when there are a myriad of factors contributing to the economy. f so the market and gov't spending help the economy. Gov't helps in having an educated workforce, and funds research leading to innovation.

A standard-issue blending of non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc....Speaking of simple minded.

Just because someone used gubmint funding to make some discovery or another, doesn't automatically mean that the discovery wouldn't have been made at all.

YOu can't deny that it didn't help, ANd I know for a fact in the biotech/pharm it helps significantly because the developing a drug to market takes a huge amount of money, nopt everybody has a huge basic research funded, since all other aspects of development cost so much. Plus all the companies and product licensed off to companies from gov't funded research.

Talk about simple minded, blowing shit off and making your argument about hypotheticals, and ignoring the complexity of the economy, at least I"m smart enough realize its not black and white. Again, both play a role

 

[Oddball]

Yes, I can deny that it helped, because you cannot prove, with any sensory evidence, that the discovery wouldn't have been made in absence of taxpayer money.

Also, the fact that a biotech/pharm company has to spend more than $500 million to get a new medication or apparatus approved, is because of FDA regulatory hurdles that only the biggest of the big can afford to pay, not because it's excessively expensive in and of itself. Then, there are the so-called "orphan drugs" that are shelved because development costs cannot be recouped, for the relatively few people that they would help.

Take a course in elementary logic some time, "doctor".