Pro-Wrestler Smacks Down Keynesian

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yep. And the same is true about the private sector, it is far from a foregone conclusion that it will create more or better jobs.

Jobs are jobs. When the private sector cannot create them and in fact sheds them like is happening now, only the government can create jobs. That doesn't mean that the government does a better job, or should do it continually...it just means that at particular points in time it is the only one that can. At this point it doesn't matter who is creating jobs, it just matters that they are created.

When the private sector does not create a certain job, or "loses" a certain job that is a very important function of the market. It means that demand for that job is not wanted or at least not absolutely necessary, and that those resources for that job should be freed up for other uses.

That's nice, Kevin, but quite honestly I think the overall economic health of the country is a better goal than some Libertarian utopia where the USA ends up being a third world country.

This isn't a "Libertarian utopia" I'm talking about, this is economics. You can't fund a job at the expense of the taxpayers when they don't have enough use for that job to have it stand on it's own in the market. That doesn't add to the "economic health" of the country, that takes away from it.

 

[Ravi]

When the private sector does not create a certain job, or "loses" a certain job that is a very important function of the market. It means that demand for that job is not wanted or at least not absolutely necessary, and that those resources for that job should be freed up for other uses.

That's nice, Kevin, but quite honestly I think the overall economic health of the country is a better goal than some Libertarian utopia where the USA ends up being a third world country.

This isn't a "Libertarian utopia" I'm talking about, this is economics. You can't fund a job at the expense of the taxpayers when they don't have enough use for that job to have it stand on it's own in the market. That doesn't add to the "economic health" of the country, that takes away from it.

It depends on what the job is...if it's feeding the kids of the recently unemployed school lunch it is a valid job. If it is building a permanent structure useful to the entire country, similar to the interstate highway system, it is a valid job.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's nice, Kevin, but quite honestly I think the overall economic health of the country is a better goal than some Libertarian utopia where the USA ends up being a third world country.

This isn't a "Libertarian utopia" I'm talking about, this is economics. You can't fund a job at the expense of the taxpayers when they don't have enough use for that job to have it stand on it's own in the market. That doesn't add to the "economic health" of the country, that takes away from it.

It depends on what the job is...if it's feeding the kids of the recently unemployed school lunch it is a valid job. If it is building a permanent structure useful to the entire country, similar to the interstate highway system, it is a valid job.

Peter Schiff said it best, now is not the time for infrastructure building. We can't afford it. The people need their money more than the government needs it.

 

[Ravi]

sigh

The government spends it, giving people jobs.

Tell you what...show me an existing country where your ideas work.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

sigh

The government spends it, giving people jobs.

Tell you what...show me an existing country where your ideas work.

There isn't one where my ideas are in use. And I believe every major industrialized nation in the world is facing a recession, correct?

 

[Ravi]

Pretty much.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Pretty much.

Then that should tell you something.

And since we can agree, I assume, that there was no lack of government spending before the recession hit, why should we assume that government spending is a legitimate path to prosperity?

 

[Ravi]

Pretty much.

Then that should tell you something.

And since we can agree, I assume, that there was no lack of government spending before the recession hit, why should we assume that government spending is a legitimate path to prosperity?

Most of the government spending was for another country...Iraq. Most domestic programs were cut, and cut again.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Pretty much.

Then that should tell you something.

And since we can agree, I assume, that there was no lack of government spending before the recession hit, why should we assume that government spending is a legitimate path to prosperity?

Most of the government spending was for another country...Iraq. Most domestic programs were cut, and cut again.

But wasn't it you that said earlier that the military provided jobs for people? Why is that not now as legitimate as domestic jobs?

 

[mash107]

Pretty much.

Then that should tell you something.

And since we can agree, I assume, that there was no lack of government spending before the recession hit, why should we assume that government spending is a legitimate path to prosperity?

Most of the government spending was for another country...Iraq. Most domestic programs were cut, and cut again.

True, most of the spending was for rebuilding in Iraq, but contracted through U.S. companies like Haliburton. It's still foolhardy to think that government can spend money better than an entrepreneur with a great idea that just needs money. And that is definitely the choice made between government spending and private spending.

 

[Ravi]

Then that should tell you something.

And since we can agree, I assume, that there was no lack of government spending before the recession hit, why should we assume that government spending is a legitimate path to prosperity?

Most of the government spending was for another country...Iraq. Most domestic programs were cut, and cut again.

True, most of the spending was for rebuilding in Iraq, but contracted through U.S. companies like Haliburton. It's still foolhardy to think that government can spend money better than an entrepreneur with a great idea that just needs money. And that is definitely the choice made between government spending and private spending.

Why is it foolhardy?

 

[mash107]

Most of the government spending was for another country...Iraq. Most domestic programs were cut, and cut again.

True, most of the spending was for rebuilding in Iraq, but contracted through U.S. companies like Haliburton. It's still foolhardy to think that government can spend money better than an entrepreneur with a great idea that just needs money. And that is definitely the choice made between government spending and private spending.

Why is it foolhardy?

Do you honestly think blowing up a building in Iraq and then rebuilding it, with money that could be used in actually making things, is beneficial to our economy?

 

[Ravi]

True, most of the spending was for rebuilding in Iraq, but contracted through U.S. companies like Haliburton. It's still foolhardy to think that government can spend money better than an entrepreneur with a great idea that just needs money. And that is definitely the choice made between government spending and private spending.

Why is it foolhardy?

Do you honestly think blowing up a building in Iraq and then rebuilding it, with money that could be used in actually making things, is beneficial to our economy?

lol...no I don't but one bad combination of presidents and congress doesn't make something foolhardy all the time.

 

[mash107]

Why is it foolhardy?

Do you honestly think blowing up a building in Iraq and then rebuilding it, with money that could be used in actually making things, is beneficial to our economy?

lol...no I don't but one bad combination of presidents and congress doesn't make something foolhardy all the time.

But why do you think men, no matter how more gifted they may be than our last administration, are smarter than markets? Wouldn't you rather have demand dictate how many homes should be built than a President?

 

[Ravi]

Do you honestly think blowing up a building in Iraq and then rebuilding it, with money that could be used in actually making things, is beneficial to our economy?

lol...no I don't but one bad combination of presidents and congress doesn't make something foolhardy all the time.

But why do you think men, no matter how more gifted they may be than our last administration, are smarter than markets? Wouldn't you rather have demand dictate how many homes should be built than a President?

Smarter is an odd way to put it...and as far as I can tell no president is deciding how many homes to build...kind of a strawman, no?

But if you mean is it best to let the markets do whatever markets do without interference from men, the answer is that it depends on what your goal is.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but for the last eight years the markets pretty much did what they did with no oversight and little regulation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

lol...no I don't but one bad combination of presidents and congress doesn't make something foolhardy all the time.

But why do you think men, no matter how more gifted they may be than our last administration, are smarter than markets? Wouldn't you rather have demand dictate how many homes should be built than a President?

Smarter is an odd way to put it...and as far as I can tell no president is deciding how many homes to build...kind of a strawman, no?

But if you mean is it best to let the markets do whatever markets do without interference from men, the answer is that it depends on what your goal is.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but for the last eight years the markets pretty much did what they did with no oversight and little regulation.

The markets were far from unregulated.

 

[mash107]

lol...no I don't but one bad combination of presidents and congress doesn't make something foolhardy all the time.

But why do you think men, no matter how more gifted they may be than our last administration, are smarter than markets? Wouldn't you rather have demand dictate how many homes should be built than a President?

Smarter is an odd way to put it...and as far as I can tell no president is deciding how many homes to build...kind of a strawman, no?

But if you mean is it best to let the markets do whatever markets do without interference from men, the answer is that it depends on what your goal is.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but for the last eight years the markets pretty much did what they did with no oversight and little regulation.

I used homes in my argument, because that's certainly not a strawman. With Bush's blessing, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac inducing moral hazard, and the central bank keeping rates way below market rates, this introduced an artificial spike in demand on homes that resulted in this giant bubble that inevitably had to collapse. Just because you don't like the results a market gave you, with certain interference, doesn't mean you can blame the market itself. I guess it's easier to blame the market's behavior, because the interference usually has the best of intentions. But one never studies the unseen collateral damage of interference to unearth why the market's reacting in a bad way.

 

[Ravi]

Um, the collapse was more the fault of the ability of banks to sell off their bad risks immediately and the credit rating agencies bad ratings. If only freddie and fannie mortgages went unpaid we'd not be in this situation.

 

[mash107]

Um, the collapse was more the fault of the ability of banks to sell off their bad risks immediately and the credit rating agencies bad ratings. If only freddie and fannie mortgages went unpaid we'd not be in this situation.

You don't think people being tricked into buying homes they couldn't afford with artificially low interest rates had anything to do with the bubble?

 

[Toro]

Again, any job the government creates it also destroys by taking money from the private sector so that the private sector can no longer create jobs with that money.

Economics in One Lesson

Government Projects do not "Create Jobs" - Isaac M. Morehouse - Mises Institute

Economics in One Lesson was one of the first economics books I read and would recommend it to anyone who wants to get a basic understanding of economics. It is excellent.

However, it is merely a basic understanding and no more as it is a simplistic description of a very complex system and makes assumptions about how people behave that are not always correct. To say that government always destroys jobs by taking away money from the private sector is one of those assumptions as it assumes that people always act rationally, that there is never market failure, that aggregate demand curves are always a particular slope, that supply is always adequate, and so on.