The Greatest Job Creator Of All Time

[midcan5]

The right wing conservatives and libertarians worship the rich and markets, it is these wonderful rich people and in these marvelous markets that jobs are created. To hear the wingnuts say it, you'd think jobs grew from the rich and markets were just brimming with work. Like money growing on trees the wingnuts bow to their gawds of money and magic. So here's a little history on jobs.

"More Government, Please!' By Thomas Frank, excerpted from the December 2011 Harper's magazine

Speaker Boehner giving a speech at the Reagan Building:

"One of the reasons job creators aren’t doing their thing, Boehner explained, is that they had been “slammed by uncertainty from the constant threat of new taxes, out-of-control spending, and unnecessary regulation from a government that’s always micromanaging, meddling, and manipulating.” It was this last infraction—excessive regulation— that drew most of Boehner’s ire, and as the Speaker spoke, the indictment lengthened. Not only were “intrusion and micromanagement” by Big Brother causing job creators to rend their garments in frustration.

[...]

This is such a shibboleth among Republican politicians that to hear it is to yawn, to move a few comfortable inches deeper into somnolence. But then the Speaker said something that caused me to shake my head and rub the sleep out of my eyes. The building in which he was talking, he pointed out, “is named in memory of former president Ronald Reagan, who recognized that private-sector job creators are at the heart of our economy. And they always have been.”

In point of fact, the Ronald Reagan Building is the opposite of a monument to free enterprise and private-sector job creation. The gigantic structure, completed in 1998, is the second-largest federal office building after the Pentagon. It was built under the supervision of the General Services Administration, on a scale so inflated that the former president’s son Michael once called it “Mount Wastemore.” Had this palace’s existence been left entirely up to the private sector and the unfettered market, it would not be here. The jobs involved in its construction would not have been created at all."

[..]

"Here, if we are willing to see it, is a story that might prove instructive as we grapple with a second breakdown of our economic system. We can let people who are out of work languish on unemployment insurance, a program that didn’t exist in the 1930s, or we can count on food stamps to see them through. But if we are so concerned about job creation, why not just create jobs? It’s not an impossibility, despite the lessons intoned so soberly by Speaker Boehner and his colleagues."

Here come the jobs: Time Great Depression

"...The program’s administrator, Roosevelt confidant Harry Hopkins, had famously spent more than $5 million in his first two hours as a federal official. At the CAW, he found jobs for 4 million people in two months.

Although it would be a brain stopping system error to acknowledge it nowadays, these achievements would probably make Harry Hopkins— bleeding-heart, government- loving, unelected super bureaucrat Harry Hopkins— the all-time greatest job creator in American history. Yes, his manic spending infuriated laissez faire purists of 1933 just as much as the Obama Administration’s deficits bother such people today. But his tactics worked. The WPA, which Hopkins ran from 1935 to 1938, ultimately created about 3 million jobs per year.

[...] Even a thoughtful (so called) conservative agrees.

“Compared to almost any tax cut, the employment impact of direct federal hiring is far superior,” I was told by Ross Eisenbrey of the Economic Policy Institute. And as the economist Kevin Hassett, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, assured a congressional panel in 2010, “If the economic stimulus moneys were spent directly hiring individuals, they would have created twenty-one million jobs.” Hassett went on to explain how federal money might be used to subsidize private-sector hiring."

Harper's Magazine

PS For the intelligent reader may I suggest checking into Harper's, for the wingnuts continue believing corporate created reality, corporations - so called job creators - love it when you all sing in tune.

 

[Mr. H.]

"One of the reasons job creators aren’t doing their thing, Boehner explained, is that they had been “slammed by uncertainty from the constant threat of new taxes, out-of-control spending, and unnecessary regulation from a government that’s always micromanaging, meddling, and manipulating.”

Right on.

I certainly don't "worship the rich" but I do believe in markets. Obama has been on a branding campaign since taking office. He's branded markets, the wealthy, free enterprise, and commerce as some type of pariah that deprives Americans of unearned fortunes. That's the set-up.

And now we're seeing the knock-down with threats of taxation and over-regulation. THIS is preciesly the environment in which markets hesitate to function, and hiring is put on hold.

 

[Oddball]

Break enough windows and we can all get rich in the glass and glazing businesses!

 

[Mr. H.]

Oddly enough, the local Simonton factory is hiring LOL.

 

[ThinkCritically]

The greatest job creator of all time was ambition, drive, hard work, and reward......oh yeah and the government

 

[Star]

"One of the reasons job creators aren’t doing their thing, Boehner explained, is that they had been “slammed by uncertainty from the constant threat of new taxes, out-of-control spending, and unnecessary regulation from a government that’s always micromanaging, meddling, and manipulating.”

Right on.

I certainly don't "worship the rich" but I do believe in markets. Obama has been on a branding campaign since taking office. He's branded markets, the wealthy, free enterprise, and commerce as some type of pariah that deprives Americans of unearned fortunes. That's the set-up.

And now we're seeing the knock-down with threats of taxation and over-regulation. THIS is preciesly the environment in which markets hesitate to function, and hiring is put on hold.

Yeah right--pewsh!

If that's what Boehner said, Boehner's an idiot that has been totally blinded by the asscheeks covering his
eyes-----Henry Ford must be spinning in his grave.


Poofuckinleese---think it through, who in their right mind chooses to NOT earn a living because their askeered taxes ---might--- go up, and/or they have to follow the same regulations their competition has to deal with? Very funny concept--dontcha think?


Joe and Jane consumer are the greatest job creators. Demand creates jobs, supply side economics is rooted in communism/totalitarianism.





[SIZE=+1]Including "Demand Side" Factors[/SIZE]. Socialist systems fail because consideration of demand factors is not directly linked to decisions about production, which are determined by central planning committees.

Similarly, Supply-Siders fail when they seek to separate supply from demand in the economic equation. It is demand from consumers which stimulates production by real producers. And who are these consumers? Everyone in the economy! But since the productive work force is the largest single segment, the same individuals who actually produce wealth (supply) are the largest single component in creating demand for it. Demand is stimulated when the real producers become the consumers.

The overall success attributed to free-market economies is the result of the close link between supply and demand. Demand creates supply. Industries will produce what consumers will buy. But it is not an impotent demand of wishes, rather a demand based on actual sales. If consumers (mostly from the productive work force) cannot afford to become a potent demand-side buying force, the economy becomes stagnant and everyone suffers.

In the 1930's, when the productive work force enjoyed protections which enabled creation of the supply-side, the same consumer force also developed the economic clout to generate demand, which generated further supply, and so on. As long as those who produce the goods can afford to purchase what they create, a domestic market is created and a cycle of economic prosperity ensues. As New Deal protections were solidified over the next four decades, our economy became increasingly prosperous and the gap between rich and poor steadily narrowed. Only in the last decade, under deregulation, have these gains been reversed. Wages for workers decrease, while salaries at the top skyrocket. The rich get richer. There is less buying power (demand) from the labor force (producers/consumers). The economy slows down.

The old economic truism asserts that the economy prospers during a "wartime economy." Why is that? Why should an economic boom result from diverting productive resources away from the production of consumer goods and services, towards products such as bombs and bullets that destroy real wealth? Because a massive redistribution of payments is suddenly diverted away from top-level salaries and profits, towards legions of soldiers (consumers), generally recruited from the bottom levels of the economic strata.

Why shouldn't we have, instead, a "wartime economy" based on productive rather than destructive expenditures, in which good jobs are provided at good wages for building roads, hospitals, housing and manufacturing resources under regulatory controls to prevent the balance of wealth from becoming unbalanced -- concentrated in favor of those who own and control such resources as the economy sags into a top-heavy recession.

This is the essence of "Free Market Plus": to use free market incentives in private enterprise, with just enough government intervention and regulation to balance out the extremes and bring the interests of owners, investors, workers and consumers together in harmony -- a compassionate approach that benefits everyone.

In the extreme example of third-world feudalism, we can see this even more dramatically. If we could take all the hard-working survivalists off the streets and put them in factories producing televisions, autos, appliances, food, and housing, there would be more than enough increased wealth to go around. It wouldn't matter whether those factories were capitalized by private investors, charities, the government, or any combination.

So why don't we put them all in factories? Because, under raw capitalism, if they work in a factory, competitive pressures among the investors who own the productive resources will cause them to be paid as little as possible. This means just enough to survive on. If one owner raises salaries, it is not enough to make a dent in the system, and they reduce their competitive edge in pricing against those who continue to pay the lower salaries. No single investor has the economic clout to go first, so the productive work force does not have enough money to buy the products they could have been producing. There is no mechanism for distributing the wealth that could have been created, so there is no incentive to actually take the laborers off the street and make them productive. The people remain poor, while the investors miss out on a great opportunity. The vicious cycle can only be broken when the community as a whole, through government, establishes minimum standards to protect workers and consumers, reflecting its compassion.

In theory, Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" of lassiez-faire capitalism is supposed to regulate such excesses, as workers exercise their "economic freedom" to enter into voluntary contracts with investors, exchanging labor for money. But in practice, there is no "free market" if both sides do not have equal bargaining positions. In completely unregulated feudal economies, where wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, agreements are based on duress: workers have to take what is offered or die from starvation and exposure. The economic imbalance inherent in feudal systems is perpetuated by force, just as it was created by force.

In the European "Middle Ages," those who had military power in an age of ongoing warfare could offer protection to those who would pledge them fealty and enter into the safety of their castles in exchange for "voluntarily" becoming their subjects. This "social contract," passed on through succeeding generations, became the basis for the "divine right" of kings, although failure to accept such "voluntary" terms of extortion would have meant certain death. Similarly, in the Southern United States prior to emancipation, great wealth was created for plantation owners by workers (slaves) who did not even enjoy a token gesture of "free choice." Although that wealth was passed on by inheritance to succeeding generations, any attempt to restore portions of such wealth to the heirs of its creators has always been labeled "reverse discrimination." In nations victimized by colonial oppression, such as in India, Africa and the Philippines, invaders conquered native populations and expropriated the land and its wealth which was, again, passed on through inheritance to succeeding generations even after the end of colonial rule. Yet those who have inherited unearned wealth in these modern feudal economies still refuse to accept economic reforms to restore any portion of such wealth to the heirs of those from whom it was taken by force, who are still forced to accept an unequal economic contract, with a result of widespread poverty.
Raw, unregulated free-market capitalism does not work. Socialism also doesn't work. We need a balance between the extremes. "Free Market Plus" is a basic free-market system, with supply and demand incentives, but with adequate regulation to protect workers and consumers in a compassionate way, ensuring the balance between supply and demand. Policies of greed, or incentives of taxation that favor a few wealthy instead of the general population of producer/consumers, are counter-productive.

Those on the extreme political right wing worship free enterprise like a dogmatic religion, in a free and purely unregulated form, while those on the extreme left would like to throw out the free market altogether. Sensible people see a balance in the middle: the free market provides the foundation for our successful economy, but is one among many factors to consider. We can compare it to sex: sex is the basis of life and free enterprise is the basis of economic life. Both are powerful motivational forces. Long-range sexual satisfaction is maximized within the boundaries of stable relationships, not by just letting the sexual impulse run wild and unrestrained. Similarly, the free market can be destructive when it runs wild and unrestrained, causing extremes of poverty and wealth, and allowing those who own and control productive resources to shut out those who do not and manipulate market forces to gain an unfair advantage over workers and consumers. Reasonable limitations on the excesses of capitalism do not diminish the legitimate operation of free markets any more than rules of the road hurt the safe use of automobiles.

 

[ThinkCritically]

the system you describe here sounds much like the one we currently employ.

 

[midcan5]

Excellent comment, Star.

Any reading of America history clearly shows the importance of government in job creation. The irony of the republicans like Boehner is the same people work in government, use government to reward their benefactors, and eventually resign and then return working with government.

"In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States. By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country. The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals." William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living. This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention. The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government.

Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect. First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages). "

The Conservative Nanny State
_

 

[Mr. H.]

Conservatives don't want to "use government to distribute income upwards". That's a farcical notion.
We do, however, object to federal and state confiscation of personal property as a sole means of redistribution in the name of an artificiallly contrived socialist collective.

You both are off your rockers.

 

[sparky]

Raw, unregulated free-market capitalism does not work. Socialism also doesn't work. We need a balance between the extremes. "Free Market Plus" is a basic free-market system, with supply and demand incentives, but with adequate regulation to protect workers and consumers in a compassionate way, ensuring the balance between supply and demand. Policies of greed, or incentives of taxation that favor a few wealthy instead of the general population of producer/consumers, are counter-productive.

zzactly....

methinks China might be an excellent raw capitalism pitri dish to watch in said regards

just mho...

~S~

 

[Star]

Conservatives don't want to "use government to distribute income upwards". That's a farcical notion.
We do, however, object to federal and state confiscation of personal property as a sole means of redistribution in the name of an artificiallly contrived socialist collective.

You both are off your rockers.

The disparity of wealth in this country hasn't been this bad since the 1928.

If you're blind ask the nanny-state to find a reader for you, if you're not blind-----pull your head out, spit out the kool-aid and pay attention to the historical disparity of wealth record.

​

In 2007, the share of after-tax income going to the top 1 percent hit its highest level (17.1 percent) since 1979, while the share going to the middle one-fifth of Americans shrank to its lowest level during this period (14.1 percent).

Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent after adjusting for inflation — an increase in income of $973,100 per household — compared to increases of 25 percent ($11,200 per household) for the middle fifth of households and 16 percent ($2,400 per household) for the bottom fifth.

If all groups’ after-tax incomes had grown at the same percentage rate over the 1979-2007 period, middle-income households would have received an additional $13,042 in 2007 and families in the bottom fifth would have received an additional $6,010.

In 2007, the average household in the top 1 percent had an income of $1.3 million, up $88,800 just from the prior year; this $88,800 gain is well above the total 2007 income of the average middle-income household ($55,300).

 

[Mr. H.]

Is there supposed to be someting inherently "wrong" with wealth disparity?
BTW, I do believe the Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to expire.
I also believe you're a whining socialist.

 

[Mr. H.]

 

[Star]

the system you describe here sounds much like the one we currently employ.

In the idealist's mind-----maybe?


The fruits of Joe and Jane's production isn't finding it's way into Joe and Jane consumer's hands --- without Joe and Jane's spending, money doesn't multiply it's way through the economy.


The most successful supply side economy was the old Soviet Union. In the old Soviet Union, the oligarchy identified themselves as the politburo, in supply side economics the oligarchy is the corporate decision makers.

Supply side economics turns 7 thousand years of demand side economics on his head --- maybe a righty or two would like to --try-- to make a case for how a small group of corporatists controlling so many aspects of our economy = freedom? g'head, give it a try -- make my day.

Thom Hartmann nailed it when he wrote:


Two Santa Clauses or How The Republican Party Has Conned America for Thirty Years


by Thom Hartmann
January 26, 2009

This weekend, House Republican leader John Boehner played out the role of Jude Wanniski on NBC's "Meet The Press."

Odds are you've never heard of Jude, but without him Reagan never would have become a "successful" president, Republicans never would have taken control of the House or Senate, Bill Clinton never would have been impeached, and neither George Bush would have been president.

When Barry Goldwater went down to ignominious defeat in 1964, most Republicans felt doomed (among them the then-28-year-old Wanniski). Goldwater himself, although uncomfortable with the rising religious right within his own party and the calls for more intrusion in people's bedrooms, was a diehard fan of Herbert Hoover's economic worldview.

In Hoover's world (and virtually all the Republicans since reconstruction with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt), market fundamentalism was a virtual religion.

Economists from Ludwig von Mises to Friedrich Hayek to Milton Friedman had preached that government could only make a mess of things economic, and the world of finance should be left to the Big Boys – the Masters of the Universe, as they sometimes called themselves – who ruled Wall Street and international finance.

Hoover enthusiastically followed the advice of his Treasury Secretary, multimillionaire Andrew Mellon, who said in 1931: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people."

Thus, the Republican mantra was: "Lower taxes, reduce the size of government, and balance the budget."

The only problem with this ideology from the Hooverite perspective was that the Democrats always seemed like the bestowers of gifts, while the Republicans were seen by the American people as the stingy Scrooges, bent on making the lives of working people harder all the while making richer the very richest. This, Republican strategists since 1930 knew, was no way to win elections.[/quote]

Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits the posting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball

 

[Middleoftheroad]

"One of the reasons job creators aren’t doing their thing, Boehner explained, is that they had been “slammed by uncertainty from the constant threat of new taxes, out-of-control spending, and unnecessary regulation from a government that’s always micromanaging, meddling, and manipulating.”

Right on.

Obviously Boehner is a partisan hack.
Uncertainty about new taxes? What taxes would these be? Business taxes are based on profit. So you are saying that businesses think this way "no we don't want to make another 1M because we would then have to pay another 500k in taxes" Seriously? Or the threat of new taxes on higher earners? Same thinking as above. Its stupid.
Out-of-control spending? We make our highest profit margins off the governemnt. The more they spend, the BETTER it is for our business and any business that deals with the government.
Regulation you are misunderstanding how that works. While too much regulation is bad, and there is too much regulation, it almost never effects an individual business. In the last 8 years that I have been a manager for the company I am currently at, there has been 1 regulation that has hurt our business. 1. We are not worried about new regulation. Its like thinking that you are going to win the lottery, except a bad lottery. You don't worry about it, but someone wins (or losses in this case).
Why are we not expanding? 2 reasons. First, there is weak demand or the land we look to purchase is too expensive where there is strong demand. Second, we are trying to lower our debt obligations, known as deleveraging.

 

[ThinkCritically]

That was a very interesting article there by, Hartmann.

I won't try to make an argument defending crony capitalism, but the way I see it though is that politicians use economic theory in perverse ways (this goes for both parties). They both want to win elections and will make what ever promises they can to the voters in order to attain office. Democrats promise more programs to help the poor (not a bad thing), but they are empty promises (there isn't enough money to actually sustain the programs we currently have). Republicans on the other hand promise tax cuts (not a bad thing), because the government is bloated, running up a major debt (that cannot be fixed even if you taxed the wealthy 100%), and in general inefficient.

I'm quite convinced at this point that we must balance the budget. There are two ways to do so 1) increase revenue 2) cut spending

The first option will not work because it will not even come close to balancing the budget. The 2nd option is very difficult to achieve because it would mean somebodies job, or lots of jobs.

This has been the problem for some time but it keeps getting kicked down the road because nobody wants to be the bad guy. The answer so far has been to put it off until the next election cycle, while in the mean time we will just put it on the tab. Problem is the tab is approaching the limit, and increased tax revenue will not fix it.

Last note....Its supply and demand....not supply side economics or demand side economics......

 

[Middleoftheroad]

That was a very interesting article there by, Hartmann.

I won't try to make an argument defending crony capitalism, but the way I see it though is that politicians use economic theory in perverse ways (this goes for both parties). They both want to win elections and will make what ever promises they can to the voters in order to attain office. Democrats promise more programs to help the poor (not a bad thing), but they are empty promises (there isn't enough money to actually sustain the programs we currently have). Republicans on the other hand promise tax cuts (not a bad thing), because the government is bloated, running up a major debt (that cannot be fixed even if you taxed the wealthy 100%), and in general inefficient.

I'm quite convinced at this point that we must balance the budget. There are two ways to do so 1) increase revenue 2) cut spending

The first option will not work because it will not even come close to balancing the budget. The 2nd option is very difficult to achieve because it would mean somebodies job, or lots of jobs.

This has been the problem for some time but it keeps getting kicked down the road because nobody wants to be the bad guy. The answer so far has been to put it off until the next election cycle, while in the mean time we will just put it on the tab. Problem is the tab is approaching the limit, and increased tax revenue will not fix it.

Last note....Its supply and demand....not supply side economics or demand side economics......

Agree 99%. The only point I disagree on is more of a technicality and not because I think we should do it. You can increase taxes to cover the deficit. Spending is 26% of GDP. Through tax hikes across the board you could get tax revenues up to 26%. What you cannot do is cover the deficit by only adding taxes on the rich. Nor do I think we should do it, because that kind of tax increase could be disasterous to the economy.

 

[Oddball]

That was a very interesting article there by, Hartmann.

I won't try to make an argument defending crony capitalism, but the way I see it though is that politicians use economic theory in perverse ways (this goes for both parties). They both want to win elections and will make what ever promises they can to the voters in order to attain office. Democrats promise more programs to help the poor (not a bad thing), but they are empty promises (there isn't enough money to actually sustain the programs we currently have). Republicans on the other hand promise tax cuts (not a bad thing), because the government is bloated, running up a major debt (that cannot be fixed even if you taxed the wealthy 100%), and in general inefficient.

I'm quite convinced at this point that we must balance the budget. There are two ways to do so 1) increase revenue 2) cut spending

The first option will not work because it will not even come close to balancing the budget. The 2nd option is very difficult to achieve because it would mean somebodies job, or lots of jobs.

This has been the problem for some time but it keeps getting kicked down the road because nobody wants to be the bad guy. The answer so far has been to put it off until the next election cycle, while in the mean time we will just put it on the tab. Problem is the tab is approaching the limit, and increased tax revenue will not fix it.

Last note....Its supply and demand....not supply side economics or demand side economics......

Hartmann is a hack and his piece is chock full of the usual socialist strawmen, omissions, half-truths and plain old lies.....In his world crony capitalism is A-OK, as long as those running the scam have that (D) by their names.

The problem with the federal budget is, has been, and always will be spending.

 

[Douger]

The greatest job creator of all time was ambition, drive, hard work, and reward......oh yeah and the government

The greatest is war. You pay for it and your masters profit.

 

[Oddball]

the system you describe here sounds much like the one we currently employ.

In the idealist's mind-----maybe?


The fruits of Joe and Jane's production isn't finding it's way into Joe and Jane consumer's hands --- without Joe and Jane's spending, money doesn't multiply it's way through the economy.


The most successful supply side economy was the old Soviet Union. In the old Soviet Union, the oligarchy identified themselves as the politburo, in supply side economics the oligarchy is the corporate decision makers.

Supply side economics turns 7 thousand years of demand side economics on his head --- maybe a righty or two would like to --try-- to make a case for how a small group of corporatists controlling so many aspects of our economy = freedom? g'head, give it a try -- make my day.

Socialist progressives have been making that argument for at least the last century...Their basic argument boils down to us needing the right small group of corporatists (Buffett, Soros, Immelt, the gang at Goldman Sachs and the Fed) running the show, all supposedly to the benefit of and freedom for the proles.