What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What happens when...

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,923
Points
48
Location
My Shack
Growing the economy and creating jobs are diametrically opposed goals?
 

Avorysuds

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
13,834
Reaction score
1,659
Points
245
Location
Eugene Oregon
You get Obama trying to blame the economy for holding job creation hostage?
 

Patrick2

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,576
Reaction score
104
Points
48
Growing the economy and creating jobs are diametrically opposed goals?

In a free or mostly free market, that doesn't happen. The lack of jobs now has to do with businesses not wanting to take risks in an environment where an amateur leftwing extremist president is conducting economic experiments.
 

sparky

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
23,947
Reaction score
10,828
Points
940
Location
paradise
Depends on how we define a free market

If the disparity is esculating to where a small minority is making out great

and the larger majority is sinking

which IS happening

then we've a market obviously freer for some than others

so what happens? well, the same thing that happens in any top heavy economy, doesn't really matter what form of governance, because it's not how ya play the game, it's how ya place the blame....




~S~
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,509
Reaction score
22,796
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
The truth here is that our NEW economy doesn't quite follow the rules of our OLD economy.. Consumption USED to be the king. Seed the consumer spending, and all the flowers bloomed. Manufacturers geared up, distribution and sales followed suite, and ancilliary jobs got boosted in the service sector..

NOW -- the American manufacturing sector is the insignificant part of the consumption cycle.. Seed consumption and Chinese mgrs staff up.. American shell companies composed of MBAs pocket the profits and sit on the cash. And although there might be SOME stimulation of the service sector -- it comes from a trivial fraction of American workers.

Our economic leadership better get on message and figure out how to save or redefine a manufacturing sector in America. Because measuring growth in the economy by measuring corporate income no LONGER has a very strong tie to employment..
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,267
Points
1,283
You would be living in fantasy land
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,267
Points
1,283
Growing the economy and creating jobs are diametrically opposed goals?

In a free or mostly free market, that doesn't happen. The lack of jobs now has to do with businesses not wanting to take risks in an environment where an amateur leftwing extremist president is conducting economic experiments.

Like continuing the tax cuts that didnt work under Bush either to create jobs?
 

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,267
Points
1,283
Tell us how avoiding creating jobs helps any economy?
 

Wiseacre

Retired USAF Chief
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
6,025
Reaction score
1,298
Points
48
Location
San Antonio, TX
Growing the economy and creating jobs are diametrically opposed goals?


I wouldn't say they are diametrically opposed, you can increase GDP without creating more jobs but that does not mean the 2 goals are in opposition to each other. The implication is that you have to do one or the other, when in fact you have to do both. Even in today's difficult times, we are creating jobs albeit at a much slower pace than most would like. But the economy IS growing and we ARE creating jobs. Not enough to lower UE, but that wasn't part of your premise.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,509
Reaction score
22,796
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
You would be living in fantasy land

Was that directed at my sober assessment of why we have a technically jobless recovery?

If so -- please elaborate on why that analysis is "fantasy"...
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,365
Reaction score
1,724
Points
205
Depends on how we define a free market

If the disparity is esculating to where a small minority is making out great

and the larger majority is sinking

which IS happening

then we've a market obviously freer for some than others

so what happens? well, the same thing that happens in any top heavy economy, doesn't really matter what form of governance, because it's not how ya play the game, it's how ya place the blame....




~S~

Except what we have now couldn't possibly be defined as a free market at all.
 

william the wie

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
16,667
Reaction score
2,395
Points
280
Growing the economy and creating jobs are diametrically opposed goals?
No but a simple way to think about it is to divide money into three piles: infrastructure, capital and consumption.

Infrastructure: Roads, railroads, utilities, airports and other vital services. We are creating a lot of new infrastructure lately: wireless towers, Fiber-optic cable, server farms and so on. These are competing with older infrastructure for money and space. I am not joking when I say that economic analysis indicates that the cheap solution in the eastern US and those parts of the old world not destroyed in the world wars is to bomb the cities and rebuild from scratch with lots of slack space for future infrastructure. That is how bad that pile of money is and without infrastructure there is neither economic growth nor employment. Obama's broken promise of infrastructure growth was his one good idea. Poor or broken infrastructure is the main reason that the developing world is overtaking the developed world.

Capital: it provides economic growth. Capital is saved money and is a direct charge against current consumption. As long as increasing productivity deflates prices by more than the capital charge against consumption everything works out fine. But sometimes it doesn't, in the absence of non-capital, non-infrastructure debt no serious longrun problem despite short-run pain.

Consumption: This is what drives employment and since the the 1800s consumer debt to finance housing, sewing machines, typewriters and bicycles have complicated the business cycle. Economists have very little idea, if any, what is the method of transmission of feedback from the money economy and the real economy since velocity and multipliers of money are more variable than their models.

Until the process of liquidation of bad debts is complete economic growth and employment growth ain't going to happen.
 

Patrick2

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,576
Reaction score
104
Points
48
Depends on how we define a free market

If the disparity is esculating to where a small minority is making out great

and the larger majority is sinking

which IS happening

then we've a market obviously freer for some than others

so what happens? well, the same thing that happens in any top heavy economy, doesn't really matter what form of governance, because it's not how ya play the game, it's how ya place the blame....




~S~

The current economic difficulties, caused by leftwing meddling in the housing market, has absolutely >>NOTHING<< to do with a free market, and beyond those actions which triggered the current economic crisis, government malfeasance is completely responsible for general american economic decline:

- Failed government schools
- Union wages not justified by the value of the labor
- Bloated government payrolls
- High regulation
- Huge deficit spending
- The importation of tens of millions of illiterate mexicans
- the huge entitlement programs
- "affirmative action"
- Cheap money policies caused by Fed manipulation
 

sparky

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
23,947
Reaction score
10,828
Points
940
Location
paradise
Depends on how we define a free market

If the disparity is esculating to where a small minority is making out great

and the larger majority is sinking

which IS happening

then we've a market obviously freer for some than others

so what happens? well, the same thing that happens in any top heavy economy, doesn't really matter what form of governance, because it's not how ya play the game, it's how ya place the blame....




~S~

The current economic difficulties, caused by leftwing meddling in the housing market, has absolutely >>NOTHING<< to do with a free market, and beyond those actions which triggered the current economic crisis, government malfeasance is completely responsible for general american economic decline:

- Failed government schools
- Union wages not justified by the value of the labor
- Bloated government payrolls
- High regulation
- Huge deficit spending
- The importation of tens of millions of illiterate mexicans
- the huge entitlement programs
- "affirmative action"
- Cheap money policies caused by Fed manipulation

and you've some sort of rationale that backs each of these up as the dealings of the 'left' Pat?

bring it on then....

~S~
 

sparky

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
23,947
Reaction score
10,828
Points
940
Location
paradise
The truth here is that our NEW economy doesn't quite follow the rules of our OLD economy.. Consumption USED to be the king. Seed the consumer spending, and all the flowers bloomed. Manufacturers geared up, distribution and sales followed suite, and ancilliary jobs got boosted in the service sector..

NOW -- the American manufacturing sector is the insignificant part of the consumption cycle.. Seed consumption and Chinese mgrs staff up.. American shell companies composed of MBAs pocket the profits and sit on the cash. And although there might be SOME stimulation of the service sector -- it comes from a trivial fraction of American workers.

Our economic leadership better get on message and figure out how to save or redefine a manufacturing sector in America. Because measuring growth in the economy by measuring corporate income no LONGER has a very strong tie to employment..

imho, the economic circle bears definition not only to were the buck stops, but where it starts Flac

i.e.~

we were defined by what we did, not what we bought

~S~
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,509
Reaction score
22,796
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
The truth here is that our NEW economy doesn't quite follow the rules of our OLD economy.. Consumption USED to be the king. Seed the consumer spending, and all the flowers bloomed. Manufacturers geared up, distribution and sales followed suite, and ancilliary jobs got boosted in the service sector..

NOW -- the American manufacturing sector is the insignificant part of the consumption cycle.. Seed consumption and Chinese mgrs staff up.. American shell companies composed of MBAs pocket the profits and sit on the cash. And although there might be SOME stimulation of the service sector -- it comes from a trivial fraction of American workers.

Our economic leadership better get on message and figure out how to save or redefine a manufacturing sector in America. Because measuring growth in the economy by measuring corporate income no LONGER has a very strong tie to employment..

imho, the economic circle bears definition not only to were the buck stops, but where it starts Flac

i.e.~

we were defined by what we did, not what we bought

~S~

I THINK I understand your comment. I've never blamed consumption of cheaper goods for the pickle we're in. I blame the ignorance of the folks in charge of capital flow for new industry. The same guys who overvalued internet stocks in the 90s. They KNEW we needed to shift emphasis from cheap goods to higher tech ventures in order to preserve American jobs -- and they chose to not accept the risks. Instead they let the govt define their marketing and products and took the safe subsidies and handouts.
 
Last edited:

Rozman

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
16,683
Reaction score
3,093
Points
290
Location
Brooklyn,NY
Growing the economy and creating jobs are diametrically opposed goals?

In a free or mostly free market, that doesn't happen. The lack of jobs now has to do with businesses not wanting to take risks in an environment where an amateur leftwing extremist president is conducting economic experiments.

Like continuing the tax cuts that didnt work under Bush either to create jobs?

Let's see how the main champion of Obama likes this....I'm gonna use Lib math here....

But look how many jobs were "saved" because of the bush tax cuts......
And here's where we throw out a figure like they did with the "saved" jobs position with Obama's failed stimulus deal.

I say the Bush tax cuts saved...I'm gonna roll some dice here from a Monopoly game and see what we get....The dice comes up with a 4...

The Bush tax cuts saved 4 million jobs... :eusa_shhh: I kinda made all this up....
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top