Your Government Owes You a Job

[kaz]

How does government stealing the dollars for you make the transaction more morally acceptable?

Who do you imagine government is stealing dollars from, GE?
Unless you believe all taxation is theft, government funding for a Jobs Guarantee program could be kept at 1% to 2% of GDP with returns several times larger, including paying people to work instead of paying them to remain unemployed.

Taxation is theft, especially when it's purely for the purpose of transferring money from 'A' to give to 'B.'

See, you grasp it fine. Liberals? Not so much.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm unsure how the truism 'public resources belong to the public' has anything anything to do with the debate over whether the government should be responsible for providing us with 'jobs'.

Jobs are a resource which capitalism allocates imperfectly, at best.
I would think economic democracy would mandate government's help in providing employment.

Because government is so good at everything else it does that it can't possibly make anything worse than it already is, right?

Because the WPA turned out better than Enron and Lehman Brothers, remember?

"Almost every community in the United States had a new park, bridge or school constructed by the agency. The WPA's initial appropriation in 1935 was for $4.9 billion (about 6.7 percent of the 1935 GDP), and in total it spent $13.4 billion.[2]

"At its peak in 1938, it provided paid jobs for three million unemployed men and women, as well as youth in a separate division, the National Youth Administration."

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Jobs are a resource which capitalism allocates imperfectly, at best.

Jobs are not a resource.

I would think economic democracy would mandate government's help in providing employment.

Economic democracy would. Economic freedom would not.

Land, labor, and capital are resources.
Why wouldn't jobs qualify?

Commodity
In economics, a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs. Economic commodities comprise goods and services. Wikipedia

A commodiity has to have a use value and an exchange value ....
I don't have time to educate you and will not bore other forum members with the details.

Needless to say jobs are not commodities and never will be ...
It is above your pay grade, nugh said??

 

[georgephillip]

Jobs are not a resource.



Economic democracy would. Economic freedom would not.

Land, labor, and capital are resources.
Why wouldn't jobs qualify?

A job is an agreement between two parties to exchange compensation for labor. Labor can be considered a resource (though certainly not a 'pubic' resource), but a job is a specific transaction. As such, it's no one's business but the parties involved.

Millions of people transact with government to provide themselves with employment, or do you believe public jobs are not really jobs?

 

[georgephillip]

Jobs are not a resource.



Economic democracy would. Economic freedom would not.

Land, labor, and capital are resources.
Why wouldn't jobs qualify?

Commodity
In economics, a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs. Economic commodities comprise goods and services. Wikipedia

A commodiity has to have a use value and an exchange value ....
I don't have time to educate you and will not bore other forum members with the details.

Needless to say jobs are not commodities and never will be ...
It is above your pay grade, nugh said??

You're too ******* stupid to waste key strokes on.
**** off, troll.
Get it?

 

[dblack]

Land, labor, and capital are resources.
Why wouldn't jobs qualify?

A job is an agreement between two parties to exchange compensation for labor. Labor can be considered a resource (though certainly not a 'pubic' resource), but a job is a specific transaction. As such, it's no one's business but the parties involved.

Millions of people transact with government to provide themselves with employment, or do you believe public jobs are not really jobs?

Listen, I don't want chase you around in semantic circles. You were trying to justify making government responsible for employment by framing it as a 'public resource' and therefore something that 'belongs to the public' - which makes no sense to me. What are you getting at?

 

[georgephillip]

How does government stealing the dollars for you make the transaction more morally acceptable?

Who do you imagine government is stealing dollars from, GE?
Unless you believe all taxation is theft, government funding for a Jobs Guarantee program could be kept at 1% to 2% of GDP with returns several times larger, including paying people to work instead of paying them to remain unemployed.

If that is true why doesn't every government in the world already do it?

Hint, because money is not magical. Ther is absolutely no way that government can give a person a job and make more money than it shells out, if it could we would never have ended the WPA.

Why would you think government would need to turn a profit to subsidize a Jobs Guarantee program?

"What are the Benefits of Military-to-Civilian Conversion?

"There are several benefits of a plan to support conversion and diversification of defense firms (the two concepts are similar, but not identical).

"First, peace groups, environmentalists and lobbyists for defense cuts can win allies in trade unions and some companies (probably lower-tier firms because the big ones want to argue at this point that conversion is not even possible).

"Second, defense firms can be turned into wealth generators rather than tax absorbers. By making useful products they can generate incomes and profits that can be taxed, rather than absorb tax revenue by making weapons. These tax revenues could better fight the budget deficit than mothballed and closed down plants. Want evidence? Just look at Detroit’s fiscal difficulties created by deindustrialization."

The Pentagon and the Fiscal Cliff » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[georgephillip]

How does government stealing the dollars for you make the transaction more morally acceptable?

Who do you imagine government is stealing dollars from, GE?
Unless you believe all taxation is theft, government funding for a Jobs Guarantee program could be kept at 1% to 2% of GDP with returns several times larger, including paying people to work instead of paying them to remain unemployed.

If that is true why doesn't every government in the world already do it?

Hint, because money is not magical. Ther is absolutely no way that government can give a person a job and make more money than it shells out, if it could we would never have ended the WPA.

Here's one possible reason why governments don't guarantee jobs:

"'The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.'”

"The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863."

Famous Quotations on Banking

The "tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system" might explain why the rich get richer while government lacks the funds to guarantee its citizens health, education, and employment

 

[georgephillip]

A job is an agreement between two parties to exchange compensation for labor. Labor can be considered a resource (though certainly not a 'pubic' resource), but a job is a specific transaction. As such, it's no one's business but the parties involved.

Millions of people transact with government to provide themselves with employment, or do you believe public jobs are not really jobs?

Listen, I don't want chase you around in semantic circles. You were trying to justify making government responsible for employment by framing it as a 'public resource' and therefore something that 'belongs to the public' - which makes no sense to me. What are you getting at?

Government is currently responsible for administering unemployment insurance, and I believe it could just as easily become an employer of last resort instead of paying people not to work.

 

[bripat9643]

Who do you imagine government is stealing dollars from, GE?
Unless you believe all taxation is theft, government funding for a Jobs Guarantee program could be kept at 1% to 2% of GDP with returns several times larger, including paying people to work instead of paying them to remain unemployed.

Taxation is theft, especially when it's purely for the purpose of transferring money from 'A' to give to 'B.'

See, you grasp it fine. Liberals? Not so much.

Liberals think your income is a government "resource." They are outraged by the claim that taking your money is theft. Accepting that idea would mean rejecting liberalism in its entirety.

 

[bripat9643]

A job is an agreement between two parties to exchange compensation for labor. Labor can be considered a resource (though certainly not a 'pubic' resource), but a job is a specific transaction. As such, it's no one's business but the parties involved.

Millions of people transact with government to provide themselves with employment, or do you believe public jobs are not really jobs?

Listen, I don't want chase you around in semantic circles. You were trying to justify making government responsible for employment by framing it as a 'public resource' and therefore something that 'belongs to the public' - which makes no sense to me. What are you getting at?

Misusing English and changing the meanings of the terms they use is one of the main ways demagogues put their scams over on the public.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Jobs are a resource which capitalism allocates imperfectly, at best.
I would think economic democracy would mandate government's help in providing employment.

Because government is so good at everything else it does that it can't possibly make anything worse than it already is, right?

Because the WPA turned out better than Enron and Lehman Brothers, remember?

"Almost every community in the United States had a new park, bridge or school constructed by the agency. The WPA's initial appropriation in 1935 was for $4.9 billion (about 6.7 percent of the 1935 GDP), and in total it spent $13.4 billion.[2]

"At its peak in 1938, it provided paid jobs for three million unemployed men and women, as well as youth in a separate division, the National Youth Administration."

It did? In terms of what? The stuff I heard about Whistle, Piss, and Argue doesn't paint it as a rousing success story, and actually makes Enron look good.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Land, labor, and capital are resources.
Why wouldn't jobs qualify?

A job is an agreement between two parties to exchange compensation for labor. Labor can be considered a resource (though certainly not a 'pubic' resource), but a job is a specific transaction. As such, it's no one's business but the parties involved.

Millions of people transact with government to provide themselves with employment, or do you believe public jobs are not really jobs?

Let me make it simple for you, you are wrong about jobs being a resource.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who do you imagine government is stealing dollars from, GE?
Unless you believe all taxation is theft, government funding for a Jobs Guarantee program could be kept at 1% to 2% of GDP with returns several times larger, including paying people to work instead of paying them to remain unemployed.

If that is true why doesn't every government in the world already do it?

Hint, because money is not magical. Ther is absolutely no way that government can give a person a job and make more money than it shells out, if it could we would never have ended the WPA.

Why would you think government would need to turn a profit to subsidize a Jobs Guarantee program?

"What are the Benefits of Military-to-Civilian Conversion?

"There are several benefits of a plan to support conversion and diversification of defense firms (the two concepts are similar, but not identical).

"First, peace groups, environmentalists and lobbyists for defense cuts can win allies in trade unions and some companies (probably lower-tier firms because the big ones want to argue at this point that conversion is not even possible).

"Second, defense firms can be turned into wealth generators rather than tax absorbers. By making useful products they can generate incomes and profits that can be taxed, rather than absorb tax revenue by making weapons. These tax revenues could better fight the budget deficit than mothballed and closed down plants. Want evidence? Just look at Detroit’s fiscal difficulties created by deindustrialization."

The Pentagon and the Fiscal Cliff » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

I am not the one that is arguing government is profitable, you are. Now you are calling me an idiot for saying what you said.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who do you imagine government is stealing dollars from, GE?
Unless you believe all taxation is theft, government funding for a Jobs Guarantee program could be kept at 1% to 2% of GDP with returns several times larger, including paying people to work instead of paying them to remain unemployed.

If that is true why doesn't every government in the world already do it?

Hint, because money is not magical. Ther is absolutely no way that government can give a person a job and make more money than it shells out, if it could we would never have ended the WPA.

Here's one possible reason why governments don't guarantee jobs:

"'The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.'”

"The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863."

Famous Quotations on Banking

The "tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system" might explain why the rich get richer while government lacks the funds to guarantee its citizens health, education, and employment

The major problem you have is understanding that the government is the system. Every time you argue in favor of more government you argue in favor of the system you claim you hate. Frankly, it is beyond stupid, which probably explains why you never learn anything. I keep telling you to stop reading whackadoodles that know less about economics than my cat, but you think they know what they are talking about because they use big words you don't understand.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Millions of people transact with government to provide themselves with employment, or do you believe public jobs are not really jobs?

Listen, I don't want chase you around in semantic circles. You were trying to justify making government responsible for employment by framing it as a 'public resource' and therefore something that 'belongs to the public' - which makes no sense to me. What are you getting at?

Government is currently responsible for administering unemployment insurance, and I believe it could just as easily become an employer of last resort instead of paying people not to work.

I used to believe that FTL travel was possible, then I studied science and learned why I was wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Who do you imagine government is stealing dollars from, GE?
Unless you believe all taxation is theft, government funding for a Jobs Guarantee program could be kept at 1% to 2% of GDP with returns several times larger, including paying people to work instead of paying them to remain unemployed.

If that is true why doesn't every government in the world already do it?

Hint, because money is not magical. Ther is absolutely no way that government can give a person a job and make more money than it shells out, if it could we would never have ended the WPA.

Why would you think government would need to turn a profit to subsidize a Jobs Guarantee program?

"What are the Benefits of Military-to-Civilian Conversion?

"There are several benefits of a plan to support conversion and diversification of defense firms (the two concepts are similar, but not identical).

"First, peace groups, environmentalists and lobbyists for defense cuts can win allies in trade unions and some companies (probably lower-tier firms because the big ones want to argue at this point that conversion is not even possible).

"Second, defense firms can be turned into wealth generators rather than tax absorbers. By making useful products they can generate incomes and profits that can be taxed, rather than absorb tax revenue by making weapons. These tax revenues could better fight the budget deficit than mothballed and closed down plants. Want evidence? Just look at Detroit’s fiscal difficulties created by deindustrialization."

The Pentagon and the Fiscal Cliff » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Defense plants already make useful products like tanks, jet fighters, bombers, aircraft carriers and ICBMs. How about we convert welfare parasites to producing useful products instead?

 

[dblack]

Millions of people transact with government to provide themselves with employment, or do you believe public jobs are not really jobs?

Listen, I don't want chase you around in semantic circles. You were trying to justify making government responsible for employment by framing it as a 'public resource' and therefore something that 'belongs to the public' - which makes no sense to me. What are you getting at?

Government is currently responsible for administering unemployment insurance, and I believe it could just as easily become an employer of last resort instead of paying people not to work.

Which us exactly why libertarians are opposed to government being mixed up in things like unemployment insurance in the first place.

 

[georgephillip]

Because government is so good at everything else it does that it can't possibly make anything worse than it already is, right?

Because the WPA turned out better than Enron and Lehman Brothers, remember?

"Almost every community in the United States had a new park, bridge or school constructed by the agency. The WPA's initial appropriation in 1935 was for $4.9 billion (about 6.7 percent of the 1935 GDP), and in total it spent $13.4 billion.[2]

"At its peak in 1938, it provided paid jobs for three million unemployed men and women, as well as youth in a separate division, the National Youth Administration."

It did? In terms of what? The stuff I heard about Whistle, Piss, and Argue doesn't paint it as a rousing success story, and actually makes Enron look good.

You've already established your ignorance is matched only by your conceit; why are you repeating yourself?

"The amount of infrastructure projects of the WPA included 40,000 new and 85,000 improved buildings.

"These new buildings included 5,900 new schools; 9,300 new auditoriums, gyms, and recreational buildings; 1,000 new libraries; 7,000 new dormitories; and 900 new armories. In addition, infrastructure projects included 2,302 stadiums, grandstands, and bleachers; 52 fairgrounds and rodeo grounds; 1,686 parks covering 75,152 acres; 3,085 playgrounds; 3,026 athletic fields; 805 swimming pools; 1,817 handball courts; 10,070 tennis courts; 2,261 horseshoe pits; 1,101 ice-skating areas; 138 outdoor theatres; 254 golf courses; and 65 ski jumps.[18]

"Total expenditures on WPA projects through June 1941, totaled approximately $11.4 billion.

"Over $4 billion was spent on highway, road, and street projects; more than $1 billion on public buildings, including the iconic Dock Street Theater in Charleston, the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, and the Timberline Lodge on Oregon's Mt. Hood.[19]

"More than $1 billion was spent on publicly owned or operated utilities; and another $1 billion on welfare projects, including sewing projects for women, the distribution of surplus commodities, and school lunch projects.[20]

"One construction project was the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut, the bridges of which were each designed as architecturally unique.[21]

"In its eight-year run, the WPA built 325 firehouses and renovated 2,384 of them across the United States.

"The 20,000 miles of water mains, installed by their hand as well, contributed to increased fire protection across the country.[22]"

Works Progress Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

Listen, I don't want chase you around in semantic circles. You were trying to justify making government responsible for employment by framing it as a 'public resource' and therefore something that 'belongs to the public' - which makes no sense to me. What are you getting at?

Government is currently responsible for administering unemployment insurance, and I believe it could just as easily become an employer of last resort instead of paying people not to work.

Which us exactly why libertarians are opposed to government being mixed up in things like unemployment insurance in the first place.

Which institution would libertarians prefer have responsibility for things like UE?