CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
1) The government can create jobs. A job only requires that there is a transaction through which some person x is compensated in some manner for y labor. How that compensation is substantiated is irrelevant to whether person x is in fact doing a job.
2) The government can create wealth in the same way that any economic entity creates wealth. That is, through Human activity, which exists independent of public or private sectors, is wealth created.
Econ 101: Umm first NO allow me to explain. When a private-sector worker creates something of value where previously nothing existed, the resulting new dollars inevitably trickle down to others through the goods and services he or she buys. But when a public-sector job is created, it simply means existing dollars trickle from the person who earned them to someone else — usually someone a politician considers more deserving.
The private sector creates wealth, the public sector spends it
Government workers and research funded by public dollars generate novel technologies. The fact that some researcher at NASA created Macro-Fiber Composite material (it's a real thing) instead of a private sector worker doesn't magically make that Composite material disappear from the face of the earth. It is a novel technology that was created through public research. And it has, as you put it, trickled down to others through the goods and services they buy. That is, by your definition, it is wealth.
"Government can’t replace -- can’t create jobs to replace the millions that we lost in the recession, but it can create the conditions for small businesses to hire more people, through steps like tax breaks," Obama said.
Since government has no assets, government spending has three sources of misrepresented stimulus.
1. Taxation doesn't create new jobs or wealth because it only transfers wealth from one who creates new wealth. Sure, government employees received incomes, but it is at the expense of those who produce. Government employees don't produce anything new, they only take from the general public.
2. Government borrowing is just as inadequate as taxation, yet at least in taxation, it is paid. It reduces investment in capital, labor and land. Consequently, this translates into fewer new factories, machines, and homes being built. Not only does this decrease in private investment slow economic growth, it results in additional unemployment in these industries.
3. The worst source of additional government spending is creating new money either by simply printing more money or lower interest rates. Thus, this monetary event always results in inflation by eroding the value of the currency.
Sure, NASA is great for creating inventions because that is what it was commissioned to do, but the NASA employee did invent it on his own dime. It was on the dime of the taxpayer. The taxpayer has no say what should be pursued, and this is why they are taking away from society.
That is left to some government bureaucrat who thinks he knows everything, and he is a professional.
In a private business, it is working for himself on his own dime or the owner.
The public has no say in the matter because it is not their money. It is the owner's money.
In the private business, risk and innovation is higher driven whereas in NASA, risk and innovation are driven down due to regulations and red tape.
Not only that, it takes years for NASA inventions to be waiver for retail sale to the general public.
Private companies have to follow the same regulations. If they don't then the products can't be sold to the public.
Of course, but that is not red tape.
Red tape generally includes the filling out of seemingly unnecessary paperwork, obtaining of unnecessary licenses, having multiple people or committees approve a decision and various low-level rules that make conducting one's affairs slower, more difficult, or both.
So...what's your point. It takes years of testing for anything to go on the market.
The long period of testing is only because of government. If a product is great, but unheld by the FDA, then the public suffers.
Neither does the guy who works for a private company.
That is true but if a NASA employee is ineffective, it is wasting taxpayer money, so it is virtually impossible to fire him because of the red tape with multiple channels to take to fire an government employee whereas in private company, if a employee is ineffective, he is wasting one persons personal money, so he is fired after one warning or two.
Red tape generally includes the filling out of seemingly unnecessary paperwork, obtaining of unnecessary licenses, having multiple people or committees approve a decision and various low-level rules that make conducting one's affairs slower, more difficult, or both. I like how you copied that directly from Wikipedia without citing.
I'm only going to say this once because it applies to most of your post: My teacher used to work for a pharmaceutical company. She quit that job and went to teaching. We asked her why and she said that she was tired of the corporate bull$#!t. The company that she worked for was not a part of the government. This just proves that any company can have red tape.
The long period of testing is only because of government. If a product is great, but unheld by the FDA, then the public suffers.
The very first topic was thalidomide, a drug that killed a lot of people in Europe, but not in America because of the FDA.
What about the other stuff that the FDA does? If I go to a restaurant, I don't have time to pull out huge food testers and search the kitchen for dangerous chemicals and insect, rodents, etc. The FDA saves us that time.
She quit that job and went to teaching. We asked her why and she said that she was tired of the corporate bull$#!t. The company that she worked for was not a part of the government. This just proves that any company can have red tape.
Really, are you going to say it only once because it sounds more like office politics, which is different.
If I go to a restaurant, I don't have time to pull out huge food testers and search the kitchen for dangerous chemicals and insect, rodents, etc. The FDA saves us that time.
First, the FDA has no authority over restaurants concerning meat, that is USDA, If you don't think the restaurant is safe, then don't eat there.
Really, are you going to say it only once because it sounds more like office politics, which is different.
That has nothing to do with office politics.
First, the FDA has no authority over restaurants concerning meat, that is USDA, If you don't think the restaurant is safe, then don't eat there.
My mistake! It's not as simple as just not eating at the restaurant. I've been to a restaurant that I thought was sanitary, but a month a later the inspector wrote in the local newspaper that the restaurant had rat droppings and mold.
The FDA does regulate the foods that you buy from stores. Are you going to drive around to every factory and field that produces the food to check for contaminants? No, the FDA does it for you.
You're argument is an inane one. Protip: all new jobs are created by pre-existing capital. It doesn't matter where it comes from: whether it's taxed or loaned (a transfer of capital from one source to another) or even newly minted. If the capital can be used to hire people in positions that didn't previously exist, then new jobs have been created. If those people produce something novel (like a government created micro-machined artificial lung that outperforms existing clinically used artificial lungs) or already existing (a videogame), and it's sold or implemented in the market, wealth has been created. The government can, has, does, and will do both for as long as you and I live (probably...). To suggest otherwise is to betray a gross ignorance of reality or outright dishonesty.
Dude your insane cause you don't' have a F&&# clue what you are talking about. You have no idea on how business works or how Government absolutely needs private free markets in order to function. If there are no free markets and money being made on the private sector in the Free Market Capitalism society then government can't issue bonds and take from taxes and spend it. Here i will put it in 7th grade analogy for you because I'm guessing that's your age. Imagine a farmer and he has a crop and that crop is the private sector. That Farmer needs the crop to flourish and prosper so he can harvest it to pay for his expenses and so forth. But if there is no harvest then that farmer's ability to pay for his expenses is gone and he has no credit cause the crop is no longer there. It's a crude analogy but simple.
I didn't argue that governments could or do function in the absence of a private sector. So, I'll take your enlightening analogy to heart, while knowing that it's largely irrelevant to the argument I did make.
Alright dude i don't necessarily agree with you but I appreciate your response to an open debate logically. Government is not all that bad yes they do good things but it's when they overreach that is not good. Remember the money that government takes and gives to research comes from private sector. It's all good I gave you an up vote
All new jobs are not created by pre-existing capital.
YOUR IGNORANCE IS HEMORRHAGING PROFUSELY!!!
If all new jobs were created by preexisting capital, how does the GDP grow or decline every year? When GDP grows, it means that new goods and services were created, thus, new capital is required to accommodate those goods and services, or print new money.
Even socialist President Obama agrees with me. Government can't create jobs and new wealth.
Whether taxation, borrowing or printing money, each of those reduces income and wealth among those paying taxes, servicing debts or stuck with shrinking greenbacks. In short, governments can't "create jobs." Adding government jobs is never a net addition to employment opportunities, because it means a heavier burden on private employers and employees. Tax
It merely SHIFTS JOBS from one industry to government. It is taking away from one industry and taking more tax money.
If the capital can be used to hire people in positions that didn't previously exist, then new jobs have been created.
Taxation isn't capital. It never was and never will be. Taxation is redistribute or transfers.
To suggest otherwise is to betray a gross ignorance of reality or outright dishonesty.
You are absolutely correct. Either you are really stupid or keep lying to yourself.
All new jobs are not created by pre-existing capital.
Really? Name one single job that can be created in the absence of capital. Protip: catch 22.
If all new jobs were created by preexisting capital, how does the GDP grow or decline every year?
The increase in the production of some thing that can be traded or implemented in the market - or the lack thereof.
Even socialist President Obama agrees with me. Government can't create jobs and new wealth.
You'll have to struggle with the idea that I don't care. Although, to state that the government can't create jobs to replace millions lost during the recession isn't the same thing as stating that the government can't create jobs at all.
In short, governments can't "create jobs."
The author of the article is a moron.
Adding government jobs is never a net addition to employment opportunities, because it means a heavier burden on private employers and employees.
One, this is a non-sequitur. Two, it's just not true. The burden on the private sector has no bearing on whether the government itself can create jobs or create wealth. But more importantly, the term "employment opportunities" necessarily makes the author's claim here fairly ridiculous.
Taxation isn't capital. It never was and never will be.
You're right. But, one, I'm not suggesting that it is; taxation is only a mechanism for collecting one form of capital: money. Two, this is irrelevant to my point. I will reiterate it here: If the capital can be used to hire people in positions that didn't previously exist, then new jobs have been created.
Taxation is redistribute or transfers.
So is a small-business loan. But that has no bearing on whether that small business can buy a warehouse, hire some people and make some thing to trade on or implement in the market.
You are absolutely correct.
If I am absolutely correct, then you are indicting yourself.
Really? Name one single job that can be created in the absence of capital. Protip: catch 22.
All jobs can be created with the absence of capital except for government jobs are created by preexisting capital.
Government uses preexisting capital to create jobs, which is transferring from one industry to another. It is merely shifting industries.
Private industry uses new capital to create jobs, such as when they take out a loan where they must pay it back or invest their own money from their own pockets.
See the difference.
You'll have to struggle with the idea that I don't care. Although, to state that the government can't create jobs to replace millions lost during the recession isn't the same thing as stating that the government can't create jobs at all.
Actually it is the same the thing.
The author of the article is a moron.
Typical liberal, resorts to name calling when it is trapped and pinned in the corner with nothing intellectual to say.
If the capital can be used to hire people in positions that didn't previously exist, then new jobs have been created.
No, because it is just shifting or reallocating pre-existing money from somewhere else. It is new money. It is money already earned, but government took the money by force and now it transferring it somewhere else.
So is a small-business loan. But that has no bearing on whether that small business can buy a warehouse, hire some people and make some thing to trade on or implement in the market.
But a business loan is new money. Taxation is not new money. See above.
I didn't say that no single job can be created in the absense of capital. You said that all jobs are created in preexisting capital. That is false.
Either it is false (as you claim in the second sentence) that all jobs are created with preexisting capital and you are saying that no single job can be created in the absence of capital. Or you are saying that some jobs can't be created in the absence of capital, which means that some jobs can be created with no preexisting capital.
If capital is required to create jobs, then the capital must, by definition, preexist those jobs. Any disagreement you might think you have are not disagreements with me. They are disagreements with the definition of "preexisting", which you don't seem to know, and sentential logic, in which you seem woefully inadequate.
Actually it is the same the thing.
To someone who doesn't have an adequate grasp of the English language, it certainly is.
No, because it is just shifting or reallocating pre-existing money from somewhere else.
Name one single job, which actually exists, that has been created without the shifting or reallocation of money. I don't need an argument here. All I need you to do is name the job that has been created without money being shifted or reallocated.
Private industry uses new capital to create jobs, such as when they take out a loan where they must pay it back or invest their own money from their own pockets.
I can prove one of two things. (1) You don't actually believe this or (2) you're holding two conflicting positions (doublethink). Or both. A very large number of small businesses get loans through the federal 7(a) loan program, by way of the Small Business Administration. I'm going to leave it at that for now to see if you have the intellect or honesty to pick up on the consequences that revelation has for your position. I'm going to leave your own words here to help you along: "But a business loan is new money. Taxation is not new money. See above."
Typical liberal, resorts to name calling when it is trapped and pinned in the corner with nothing intellectual to say.
Right, because me calling the author a moron is the only thing I ever wrote about his work or to you.
Either it is false (as you claim in the second sentence) that all jobs are created with preexisting capital and you are saying that no single job can be created in the absence of capital. Or you are saying that some jobs can't be created in the absence of capital, which means that some jobs can be created with no preexisting capital.
There was some confusion, and it was a typo, and it is now fixed?
Other than government jobs, all private jobs are created by the absence of capital.
If capital is required to create jobs, then the capital must, by definition, preexist those jobs.
If new jobs are created, new capital must be created in order to accommodate those new jobs, and GDP proves this measure.
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
So, as government spending increases, the higher percentage of the GDP is consumed by government, and private consumption and investment becomes smaller due to the reallocation of resources by the government. It is merely shifted around. WHY? Government possess no assets. So, it is impossible for it to create wealth or jobs unlike people do possess assets and can create jobs and wealth.
Any disagreement you might think you have are not disagreements with me. They are disagreements with the definition of "preexisting", which you don't seem to know, and sentential logic, in which you seem woefully inadequate.
I now what preexisting means. Pure imperious attitude that you and liberals have.
To someone who doesn't have an adequate grasp of the English language, it certainly is.
How does it feel not to grasp the English language? Maybe you should look into the mirror.
Name one single job, which actually exists, that has been created without the shifting or reallocation of money. I don't need an argument here. All I need you to do is name the job that has been created without money being shifted or reallocated.
EASY.
Every single private business in America. HOW?
First, it is their own money or business loan.
Second, they have to pay it back. When they do, it is newly sustainable job creation. NEW GOODS AND SERVICES IN THE ECONOMY.
This reminds of something. Milton Friedman was in China and workers were digging holes for a project, and he asked, why are you not using tools and heavy equipment, and the Chinese official says, job creation, and then Milton Friedman said, if you want job creation, why use shovels when you can use spoons.
This is an example of government MAKE WORK JOBS. They are unsustainable because they eventually run out of funds from taxpayers when government shifts jobs.
When government taxes or borrows money, two things are apparent. Since government possess no wealth, one, taxpayers never see any of the benefits of taxation because they have no control of where the money goes, therefore, their money is merely transferred to somewhere else.
Two, when government borrows the money, government doesn't own the money back, the taxpayers do, probably because government possess any assets.
I can prove one of two things. (1) You don't actually believe this or (2) you're holding two conflicting positions (doublethink). Or both. A very large number of small businesses get loans through the federal 7(a) loan program, by way of the Small Business Administration.
It doesn't matter whether if it is a federal loan or private bank, they still have to pay the money back. Plus, that federal loan isn't the governments money.
Again, government doesn't pay back loans, taxpayers do. Private business do pay back loans, if not they are out of business.
Also, way to prove your point by sending me to the main page of SBM. What did that prove? Nothing.
Right, because me calling the author a moron is the only thing I ever wrote about his work or to you.
Ok, you are a moron for thinking that he is moron.
I think its as simple as...raising the tax just a bit more % to pay for a new job which is directly made by the government using the tax money to pay, an example..A Dog Pound, of course this is already there, but its an example, this would be great in other countries which don't have some.
I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to go through this, or how long it's going to take before the anarchists realize no one agrees with their crazy views and stop annoying everyone in forums,
But we are government. Government is a body of people working together within a society.
If there were no such thing as a government, humans would make one, it is our instinct, we are pack animals.
Our particular government happens to be a democracy, which happens to be working extraordinarily well from a historic perspective.
The type of economy every western democracy has adapted happens to be capitalism. It doesn't have to be any more than the type of government has to be a democracy. As such though, capitalism too happens to be working quite well all things considered.
However, you cannot have a successful capitalist society, without social oversight and programs. That would no longer be a democratic government because only those 1% or 2% with inordinate wealth would have influence on government. A purely capitalist society would quickly fall into either fascism or feudalism, both of which we see historically do not work well at all for the vast majority.
Okay, now that we are clear on definitions (I know we're not because we've been through this a million times now).
Yes, "government" as it were, is no more or less capable of creating jobs and wealth than whichever undefined capitalist-anarchy these "independents" like Ron Paul seem to be in favor of.
The difference is, the number of people who have any sort of opportunity.
In the world of capitalist-anarchy, no amount of work will get you anywhere. It's a world of no minimum wage, no education if you're not rich, no retirement if your not rich. You work your whole life for slave wages and die young. That's pure capitalism. In a democratic capitalist society (which we are) everyone has opportunity.
I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to go through this, or how long it's going to take before the anarchists realize no one agrees with their crazy views and stop annoying everyone in forums.
Unfortunately, the minority (anarcho-capitalists) are at the mercy of majority's incompetence (liberals and progressive conservatives).
But we are government. Government is a body of people working together within a society.
If we are the government, what government agency do you work for? What is your title in this agency? What control do you have over government bureaucrats? To make sure that they are not being abusing the system by which they create. None.
If there were no such thing as a government, humans would make one, it is our instinct, we are pack animals.
Wrong, there is things such as self governance.
Government only has a role in protecting fellow citizens, foreign invaders, property, and enforce contracts.
Our particular government happens to be a democracy, which happens to be working extraordinarily well from a historic perspective.
Seriously, what school did you go to?
The United States is a constitutional federal republic represented by a democracy.
A purely capitalist society would quickly fall into either fascism or feudalism, both of which we see historically do not work well at all for the vast majority.
Since there never has been a pure capitalist society, your point is moot.
However, many communist and socialist republics has turned towards totalitarian governments. For example, there is the USSR, China, and North Korea.
"One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." (1984, George Orwell)
Of the all the economics system, they can be separated into two categories.
One is individualism, which is capitalism. There is only one system of individualism. Capitalism hasn't failed yet.
Two is collectivism, which is socialism and communism, and fascism. All of these have failed.
WHY HAS COLLECTIVISM FAILED AND CAPITALISM THRIVED?
Because collectivism merely transfers wealth while capitalism creates new wealth.
Okay, now that we are clear on definitions (I know we're not because we've been through this a million times now).
No, you haven't cleared anything besides your inept knowledge of our government because you don't even know that the United States government is a constitutional federal republic represented by a democracy.
In the world of capitalist-anarchy, no amount of work will get you anywhere. It's a world of no minimum wage, no education if you're not rich, no retirement if your not rich. You work your whole life for slave wages and die young. That's pure capitalism. In a democratic capitalist society (which we are) everyone has opportunity.
That is pure exaggeration of liberals.
For instance, minimum wage is the reason for unemployment. WHY? It is $7.50 per hour, which means that those who have skills under $7.50, they are automatically shifted out of employment and put on welfare.
Now, consider the infinite wisdom of government whom enacted a minimum wage of $100 per hour. What do you earn in a hour? Do you make $100 per hour? Probably Not, So, you would be unemployed as well because nobody would be able to hire you.
The job market is based on skills and supply and demand.
Within this rant and random rambling of much to do about nothing, there is not a shred of evidence that government creates jobs or wealth.
The fact remains that government only transfers wealth.
Frankly your mis-characterization of all things American besides pure capitalist greed is quickly going from comically tragic to disturbingly unpatriotic.
Where was all your anti-government anti-common worker rhetoric (minimum wage) when Bush was in office? I don't remember you on this site then. I'm trying to figure out if you are literally a crazy person who sees big bad government in the shadows, or if your a cynical right wing ideologue who understands Republican policy is directly responsible for current economics and so has to make up wild stories to convince yourself that liberals are evil demons who eat babies...
At any rate.
Unfortunately, the minority (anarcho-capitalists) are at the mercy of majority's incompetence (liberals and progressive conservatives).
I want names and instances of this being the case. I'm under the impression that anarcho-capitalists have the same rights exactly as everyone else.
If we are the government, what government agency do you work for? What is your title in this agency? What control do you have over government bureaucrats? To make sure that they are not being abusing the system by which they create. None.
I vote, therefore I have a say in government. Government does not do anything that the people do not have over site over in one manner or another. What's more, this admin is a hundred times more transparent than the last one - again, where were you 2 years ago with this crazy talk?
The point is, I don't have to work in a government agency in order to be a part of the US, which is a government of the world.
Wrong, there is things such as self governance.
Government only has a role in protecting fellow citizens, foreign invaders, property, and enforce contracts
Mhm, give that a try for three days. You are pro-capitalist economy. Economy is impossible outside of government. Outside of some sort of government, there is no agreed monetary value, no rules, no law. You would have to trade chickens for dental care and nothing is stopping bandits from stealing your chicken on the way there.
What you want is all the stuff government provides, without responsibility for maintaining that government. It's like a kid wanting allowance but refusing to mow the lawn.
Seriously, what school did you go to?
The United States is a constitutional federal republic represented by a democracy.
Yeah I know. It is a democracy like I said... wait what kind of economy do we have? Oh yeah, capitalism. I was describing the government + economy.
Since there never has been a pure capitalist society, your point is moot.
No it isn't. I can deduce that setting fire to a house, would burn down the house. Similarly I can deduce allowing pure capitalism in any type of government, would lead inevitably to all power held by a very select few, with 0 say for anyone else in how that power is used - which could be any number of things from fascism to feudalism - but it certainly would no longer be a democracy.
As for the proceeding lines - you've gone utterly off topic. You are setting up a strawman. My argument with you is not one of socialism vs capitalism. It's democracy and capitalism with over site and social programs vs pure capitalism. I'm actual quite moderate - which is why you need to continuously set up these strawman arguments.
No, you haven't cleared anything besides your inept knowledge of our government because you don't even know that the United States government is a constitutional federal republic represented by a democracy
Again, I was describing both economy and government. You are not separating government from a particular government's economic system. This isn't my misunderstanding, it is yours.
For instance, minimum wage is the reason for unemployment. WHY? It is $7.50 per hour, which means that those who have skills under $7.50, they are automatically shifted out of employment and put on welfare.
That's a ridiculous argument. There is no economic worth in hiring two people for 3.75 an hour instead of one for 7.50. Either way neither has economic means to add anything of value to the economy, or even buy the product they are making.
No one could live on that wage, no one cannot raise children, it would create in essence, a cast of peasants. Again, very Unamerican of you. People deserve an honest days pay for an honest day's work. It is one of the many laws put in place directly after the great depression, and which lead to 30 years of prosperity and steady growth until people forgot and began again with the deregulation anti-common worker bs starting with Regan.
Name a country without a minimum wage with a living standard above that of a third world country.
Where was all your anti-government anti-common worker rhetoric (minimum wage) when Bush was in office? I don't remember you on this site then.
I wasn't on the site then, and I don't give a what shit what you remember, douche.
I thought Bush was a good President except for the war.
Funny how Obama ran for against the war YET WE ARE STILL AT WAR.
I'm trying to figure out if you are literally a crazy person who sees big bad government in the shadows,
I'm trying to figure out if you are literally a government loving assfuck who only thinks about how the government can feed you, wash you, and wipe your ass.
if your a cynical right wing ideologue who understands Republican policy is directly responsible for current economics
No, I am not a Republican right wing ideologue. I hate Republicans.
I think Republican are just as stupid as Democrats. Democrats are liberal socialist and Republicans are progressive conservatives.
I want names and instances of this being the case. I'm under the impression that anarcho-capitalists have the same rights exactly as everyone else.
There are more than you think.
Hey, asshole, the Bill of Rights are guaranteed under the United States Constitution. As I said before and apparently I have say again due to your inept memory, I SUPPORT GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT, MILITARY, and COURTS.
has to make up wild stories to convince yourself that liberals are evil demons who eat babies...
You are the one who keeps bringing up the story that liberals eat babies.
I have never did once. Maybe it is true.
I vote, therefore I have a say in government.
If so, when was the last you called your senator or representative, and you were against a certain bill, and didn't get a automated response. If not, you must be fucking special. For me, it is all automated response either email, phone or letter.
I have no say as you don't either because the officials and bureaucrats don't give a fuck what we think, they are only after their own agendas of more government.
What's more, this admin is a hundred times more transparent than the last one - again, where were you 2 years ago with this crazy talk?
Why is everything crazy talk? You must be the only with the crazy talk.
WAIT...Now, you will say that this was all in the interest of the nation and not everything the public should know about. Wait, that is what Bush did.
The point is, I don't have to work in a government agency in order to be a part of the US, which is a government of the world.
Wrong, if you don't work in a government agency, you are not part of the government, which means you have no say in anything, you are just a pathetic citizen just like everyone else.
Under my system, government works for the people, under your system, people work for the government.
When did the US government become the world government. I MUST HAVE BEEN HIDING IN THE SHADOWS.
Economy is impossible outside of government
That is liberal speculation, and there is a huge amount of evidence to the contrary nor do I have the time or the inclination.
Outside of some sort of government, there is no agreed monetary value, no rules, no law.
Again, I support government law enforcement, courts and military.
You would have to trade chickens for dental care and nothing is stopping bandits from stealing your chicken on the way there.
Seriously, where do you come up with this crap? Liberal Response Guide written by Retards.
What you want is all the stuff government provides, without responsibility for maintaining that government. It's like a kid wanting allowance but refusing to mow the lawn.
That is inaccurate. The only stuff I want government to provide is law enforcement, military and courts. If the government didn't take more in taxes than what people pay in food, transportation and housing combine, maybe some things that you see as government necessary and don't have the money, well, they would if not high taxes. Private school and roads would be affordable.
Yeah I know. It is a democracy like I said... wait what kind of economy do we have? Oh yeah, capitalism. I was describing the government + economy.
WTF???? What is this mumbo jumbo?
As for the proceeding lines - you've gone utterly off topic. You are setting up a strawman. My argument with you is not one of socialism vs capitalism. It's democracy and capitalism with over site and social programs vs pure capitalism. I'm actual quite moderate - which is why you need to continuously set up these strawman arguments.
I am the strawman, you should talk.
YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN ONE FUCKING ARGUMENT RELEVANT TO THE DEBATE!!!
Again, I was describing both economy and government. You are not separating government from a particular government's economic system. This isn't my misunderstanding, it is yours.
I know there is a fundamental difference between form of government and economics. They are not the same. They are clearly different..
WAIT, if this is correct, you think our democracy describes both our government and economic system as one.
OK, what did you study? Because it shows.
There is no economic worth in hiring two people for 3.75 an hour instead of one for 7.50.
DID I SAY THAT STRAWMAN? WHO IS CREATING THE ARGUMENTS WITH HIMSELF NOW?
No one could live on that wage, no one cannot raise children, it would create in essence, a cast of peasants.
SCARE TACTICS, SCARE TACTICS. Did you get this out of the Democrat Rhetoric Hand guide. How many times have I seen this?
*WHY NOT RAISE IT UP TO $100 PER HOUR? THEN LIFE WILL BE GREAT!!
OH, WAIT BECAUSE EVEN YOU AND I WILL BE UNEMPLOYED because nobody can afford to pay 300 million people that much money. And the 7.50 is the reason for unemployment now, at least some of it.
Age and education are the two most basic determinants of the wage a worker can command in the employment market. Young people generally have less experience and maturity and are usually not productive enough to demand a very high wage. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the bulk of minimum-wage workers are under 25, with limited education.
Again, very Unamerican of you.
How? No, you are. You want less freedom and more government.
What you don't realize is the more government, the less free? Apparently, you like being controlled by your master, big daddy government.
People deserve an honest days pay for an honest day's work.
They will. Lets say, the end of the world scenario of yours where no will live and everyone will die.
Well, if a employer chooses to go down to $3.50, then guess what, he will have difficulty finding anyone willingly to work for that little of a wage. They can go somewhere where they do pay more money, and since they are adults, I am sure they can come to an agreement on the appropriate wage. This is already done in the professional area. What the minimum wage does it allows companies to dump all their lower hierarchy jobs into the minimum wage.
Name a country without a minimum wage with a living standard above that of a third world country.
Prayerfails, I am incredibly sad that one with so much natural intelligence, which you obviously display being the only one even remotely capable on this site, amidst this flurry of anarchism, to actually be able to continue defending this position against the onslaught of logic, facts and statistics which prove beyond any mere human reasonable doubt, that you are in fact quite incorrect on your basic summation that all government = evil.
I would even go so far as to say that if it were not for your odd government turret syndrome, that you are better at debating politics than myself... granted politics is my least favorite subject but I as a citizen of government feel a need to defend it, and the human specie's best example of it, democracy, as best I can.
While it is obvious that on these debates that you regularly set up as a strawman, others do the brunt of the work in disclaiming your assertions, and while, it is quite true by this debate in itself, that you and you alone answer every challenge to this logic that you hold that some evil, all powerful, destructive government exists. With logic, patience, and astute understanding of the overall condition of man (and the luck man has at being born now within this democracy and not some anarchy) most see that you are quite incorrect.
Most see frankly, that you sound a bit insane with your accusations.
Look at this debate.
Of active debaters your lot out numbers myself and the Mohollinder's, Caspers, Aves, etc. at least 2 to 1.
Yet, when the debate gets complex, the other anarchists abandon you.
Look at this debate. You are answering alone.
Why are you the only one to come to this conclusion? While the rest give their bumper sticker response and bail?
Am I stupid, as you imply? I don't think you think that. Certainly you don't think Ave or Mohollinder are. Look at our debates. None of us are stupid.
Yet, of the one's who consistently give solid, well-thought debates, you stand alone in this position.
I'm not saying I'm right. There is always wiggle room.
But you are so outstandingly wrong in this issue, that it makes me wonder if it possibly could be from your own thought, as bright as I know you are, or if it must be the result of something.
Honestly it is irreconcilable to me that one so otherwise intelligent could be so obviously at fault in one specific area.
I'm humoring you for the last time. Numbers equal your bolded points. Perhaps I was tricked and simply over-estimated your ability, but I really think you're quite bright from what I've seen.
1. The point was an overall gravitation toward this site, quite suddenly, by the oddest group once Obama was President. All preaching fiscal responsibility. Yet not one of them was here when this deficit was created. It is an odd thing. I am curious what caused this migration of what is definitely an overall drop in the quality of debate since the inauguration of a new president.
Obama ran specifically on ending Iraq, and concentrating on Iran. He's done exactly that. He has been true exactly to the letter to his word, on all things war. I don't know what information you are looking at.
Bush took us from the largest surplus in US history, to the largest deficit. One can do a couple of things. They can claim the Executive Branch has little to do with economy, in which case they can no more blame Bush than Obama. Or they can accept that indeed the Executive Branch plays a role. In which case they have to admit that since Obama took office the deficit has dropped, the rate of unemployment is down, and the GDP has increased significantly.
What one cannot do is say Bush was good minus the war, then blame Obama from what is in reality, an economy that is improving. It's madness frankly.
2. Actually I'm an independent contractor. This means I pay a higher tax rate than the general population, and since i make less than six figures, I have very few tax loopholes to play with.
Personal attacks aside. I've made quite clear that I love capitalism, but am aware that capitalism simply does not and cannot work without corporate oversite and social programs.
3. I'm aware you support military, law enforcement, and courts. I never said you didn't. What I'm curious about though is how, without checks and balances, you propose to ensure the corporate world does not exert undue influence on these things.
I don't argue that for instance, food stamps or welfare could logically be eliminated. And sure, some would "rise to the occasion" as you seem to assert would happen if Government simply "quit giving handouts." I disagree, I think programs like this are necessary. But I understand the theory.
What does not make sense is, if companies are allowed to run whatever they can afford to run, from media to political ads, what is to ensure that military, government police system, and the judicial branch, are not simply bought? You know humans are in these positions of power. What checks are put on them, in a pure capitalism, if there is no check on the money? None I say. The rest, I get the theory though I disagree with. This though is pure lunacy. Any judge, jury, cop, or military could be bought in a pure capitalist society and none would be there to stop it from happening.
4. No, you consistently think the worst of my position. To highlight this, I say "eat babies" basically the worst thing I could think off hand. I was putting your stance on the liberal side of issues... which is an actual side many Americans born and raised agree with, into perspective. You villify. I highlight the absurdity of your vilification.
5. Are you suggesting that our votes are not tallied at the end of the day? This sounds like conspiracy hogwash, but if true, you certainly should do something to uncover the truth. Consquently, I've no proof I'm writing this and any who show me this post which I'm not writing may very well be "in on it."
Fact: We vote, people are elected by our vote. Hate or love who at the end is elected (God knows if Angle is elected in Nevada I will dislike it) but at the very least it is the people, and not some shadowy group or a couple billionairs who've decided the election.
6. Obama killed the public option because Republicans would not have allowed it to pass otherwise. I disagree with the desicion to kill it, but I understand democracy is messy and requires compromise.
Next, Obama buys votes... really? Actually this blog is talking exactly about the public option, and the lack there of. And it's called a compromise, give and take, no money was exchanged. And this blog is a slilly joke. Here's the homepage http://centristnetblog.com/. There's nothing "centrist" about it. The whole thing is one long hit job on Obama. Are you taking source lessons from Terminator?
Next, Job offer to Sestak. Another Blog naturally, that's where you go when you want fiction without fact interfering. Here though the blogger, despite his racey headline, had a bit of integrity. Here's a direct quote from the article you provided - copy and paste
I looked through it," Steve Bunnell of the firm O'Melveny & Myers, said of the job-offering related document released by the White House on Friday. "I don't see anything criminal about what happened. Basically you are talking about political horse-trading, which strikes me as an inherent part of democracy. There is nothing inherently bad about it unless you think politics and democracy are bad."
And I love how at the end of these silly sources which I so quickly, easily, and drunkenly dissprove, that you assume what my reaction will be. No, this section I did not mention Bush, I simply debunked your sources. I only mention Bush when you bring up the economy and blame Obama, because all the facts show that the economy has improved thus far since Obama took office, so it is very relevant.
7. Already explained. That you believe your vote isn't counted isn't my problem. I vote, I have a say, as does everyone.
8. This shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what govenrment is. Look it up. You don't understand that humans naturally create governments, as do all social animals. We name ours and have choice in ours, because we are complex. Hit the world with an Asteroid, a week later, people will be forming governments. It is what we do naturally.
... Ugh, this is silly. Like Warlin you're really not worth my time on this anymore.
Your last one about minimum wage and standard of living. Here is my disproof of your proof...
tada, it's the article you linked. Read it. Those countries with a higher living standard have different means of ensuring a minumum wage which is simply not called a minumum wage. The reality is, if it were called minimum wage, theirs would be higher. And they all, to a one, have a higher standard of living.
So often in these anarchy debates the very links you all provide are the proof against your position... if you would only actually read them.
amidst this flurry of anarchism, to actually be able to continue defending this position against the onslaught of logic, facts and statistics which prove beyond any mere human reasonable doubt, that you are in fact quite incorrect on your basic summation that all government = evil.
I know have been trying to provide you with logic, facts and statistics but the liberals (that being you) only deny and deny again.
Hey, I want to live in freedom, unlike yourself where you want to live in servitude, which I guess that is your preference.
I would even go so far as to say that if it were not for your odd government turret syndrome
See, I find this highly offensive, which is why I went on my little name calling last post. I don't like name calling as much as the next guy.
granted politics is my least favorite subject but I as a citizen of government feel a need to defend it, and the human specie's best example of it, democracy, as best I can.
Again, for some reason, you seem think that government and economic system is democracy. Sadly, this is the logic and facts that I must defend that it is not.
Government and economic system are separate.
Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand.
While it is obvious that on these debates that you regularly set up as a strawman, others do the brunt of the work in disclaiming your assertions, and while, it is quite true by this debate in itself, that you and you alone answer every challenge to this logic that you hold that some evil, all powerful, destructive government exists.
Strawman, that is pure exaggeration. Oh, please, GOVERNMENT CAN'T CREATE JOBS OR WEALTH. YOU ARE YET TO DISPUTE THAT GOVERNMENT MERELY TRANSFER WEALTH, NOT CREATE IT. Hence, it doesn't create jobs or wealth.
Of active debaters your lot out numbers myself and the Mohollinder's, Caspers, Aves, etc. at least 2 to 1.
What, you are accusing me. This is my debate. I created it. Nobody forced you into answering it.
Yet, when the debate gets complex, the other anarchists abandon you.
How is that true? There is none on the site. Name one other than me. Terminator left.
Look at this debate. You are answering alone.
Seriously, what is your point. I can't help that you don't understand that GOVERNMENT IS INCAPABLE OF CREATING JOBS.
Why are you the only one to come to this conclusion? While the rest give their bumper sticker response and bail?
Others who agree with that government doesn't create wealth nor jobs!!
Yet, of the one's who consistently give solid, well-thought debates, you stand alone in this position.
I don't stand alone. There is more liberals on this site than conservatives or libertarians.
But you are so outstandingly wrong in this issue, that it makes me wonder if it possibly could be from your own thought, as bright as I know you are, or if it must be the result of something.
I just give 6 sources that agree, government doesn't create jobs or wealth.
Who is wrong, you?
Honestly it is irreconcilable to me that one so otherwise intelligent could be so obviously at fault in one specific area.
I am not wrong.
1. The point was an overall gravitation toward this site, quite suddenly, by the oddest group once Obama was President. All preaching fiscal responsibility. Yet not one of them was here when this deficit was created. It is an odd thing. I am curious what caused this migration of what is definitely an overall drop in the quality of debate since the inauguration of a new president.
Honestly, I didn't gravitate to this site because of Obama and preaching fiscal responsibility.
I stumbled upon this site while searching for conspiracies on the death of Princess Diana.
Obama ran specifically on ending Iraq, and concentrating on Iran. He's done exactly that. He has been true exactly to the letter to his word, on all things war. I don't know what information you are looking at.
What perpetual war? Ooo, wow thanks, Obama.
Since when were we at war with Iran. Damn it missed it again. Perpetual war destroys economies. This is a major reason why are economy is suffering.
Bush took us from the largest surplus in US history, to the largest deficit.
Bush had high deficits, but Obama has took deficits to a new level, and this graph proves it because it includes Bush's war deficit spending.
In which case they have to admit that since Obama took office the deficit has dropped, the rate of unemployment is down, and the GDP has increased significantly.
As the article clearly states, Bush's highest deficit was 400 billion while Obama has reached 1.47 trillion, which is more than 3 times.
What I'm curious about though is how, without checks and balances, you propose to ensure the corporate world does not exert undue influence on these things.
Since I already explained this, but in a world of no regulation, big business is only created by the help of big government. Business can only grow in a capitalist economy with the help of government. Regulation helps big business grow because it puts extra costs on the little guy and eventually forces him out.
How? Economics. Therefore, corporate crusaders wouldn't exist. It would only be localized economies. Basically, Big Government = Big Business, and this is what you want. This would get rid of your EVIL CORPORATIONS, yet you don't even see your own hypocrisy because you endorse big government.
I don't argue that for instance, food stamps or welfare could logically be eliminated.
They could be. As I told avesde, two stories. First, friend of mine was laid off. Since then, he has been on welfare or unemployment benefits for a year. He gets 600 dollars a month, and he spends bare minimum so after the government stops giving him handouts, he will have leftover to stay unemployed. He hasn't even filled out one application over a year. Not sure why I am his friend. Maybe college buddies.
Second, girl in high school gets pregnant. Drops out, goes to teen pregnancy school. Leaves the school and gets welfare because the father left. Then he gets welfare until the child goes to school, guess what she gets pregnant again by some random loser. The vicious cycle continues. She pays for nothing, health care, transportation, heating and water.
Handouts only empower the dependents and feel that they are not responsible for their actions. They are like parasites. Looking for ways that the government will give them free money. Sure, extreme cases, there should be some money, but not the losers.
You villify. I highlight the absurdity of your vilification.
I don't villify that is your exaggeration. I think your just wrong.
6. Obama killed the public option because Republicans would not have allowed it to pass otherwise. I disagree with the decision to kill it, but I understand democracy is messy and requires compromise.
Doesn't matter. It was a backroom deal, and he promised transparency.
Next, Obama buys votes... really? Actually this blog is talking exactly about the public option, and the lack there of. And it's called a compromise, give and take, no money was exchanged. And this blog is a slilly joke. Here's the homepage http://centristnetblog.com/. There's nothing "centrist" about it. The whole thing is one long hit job on Obama. Are you taking source lessons from Terminator?
Sad, Terminator did leave. No, if anything, he was taking lessons from me.
8. This shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what govenrment is. Look it up. You don't understand that humans naturally create governments, as do all social animals. We name ours and have choice in ours, because we are complex. Hit the world with an Asteroid, a week later, people will be forming governments. It is what we do naturally.
Remember the law enforcement, military and courts. This must have slipped your mind already.
... Ugh, this is silly. Like Warlin you're really not worth my time on this anymore.
Likewise.
Those countries with a higher living standard have different means of ensuring a minimum wage which is simply not called a minimum wage. The reality is, if it were called minimum wage, theirs would be higher. And they all, to a one, have a higher standard of living.
Maybe you should know the difference between law and collective bargaining.
Law is enforcement by government, and none of the countries have a law, thus, no minimum wage; however, most have collective bargaining, which is voluntary agreements between both parties, not government enforcement as law, There is a difference. Know it. I am not arguing collective bargaining. That is voluntary, which is great.
So often in these anarchy debates the very links you all provide are the proof against your position... if you would only actually read them.
Regardless of whether it's a good thing, the government CAN create jobs and wealth. The real question is whether or not it's a good idea. But as for the resolution, yes the government can create jobs and wealth
Yes Big Govco can create by how much they want to pass laws on adding taxes and more regulation where maybe none is needed. They are the hand on the faucet whether they want to tighten and restrict or open up the valve and let more flow that being business wealth and jobs. From the policies passed down by government they the private sector "Market" makes adjustments on the framework allowed to operate in. If incentives are given and business is less burden markets respond in hiring and liquidity in the economy. When things are tightened and uncertainty with what Govco is going to do Markets sit on the fence and usually lay off and de-leverage, which is what is happening now. That is why I find it absolutely insane that they would want to raise any taxes right now in a deep recession.
Well, it is not a matter of a good or bad thing, it is a matter of economics, and your lack of evidence clearly shows how government can indoctrinated.
READ CAREFULLY.
Government possesses no assets or wealth, thus, it must tax those with assets or wealth, therefore, government merely transfers wealth. Finally, it transfers jobs from the private to public. Hence, there is no net job creation or growth.
Public sector is inherently incapable of creating wealth due to the fact it doesn't pursue profit.
I suppose you don't have a job if you work for a non-profit organization then.
Seriously, this is sad.
Non profit organization are good because money is generated by private donations by the good of people; people who voluntarily lend a helping hand with their own money, thus, there is no force; however, it is still transferred wealth due to its charity status. Private donations are great.
So you discredit your previous claim then? a non-profit organization can indeed create jobs.
There is a reason that people voluntarily give money to such an organization(aka Pay voluntarily), its because that organization is useful to them in someway, it uses its money to create a wealth of some type(or else why would any one give money to them?)
No such thing was discredited. You are just confused.
Non profit organization are the same as government taxation. The only difference is government is forced and non profit are voluntarily since both don't possess any assets.
Sure both created incomes, not new net job growth because of the transfer of wealth. It is not new wealth.
YES on a micro-perspective, meaning considering only the people who will receive the transferred jobs.
But NO on a macro-perspective, where we will also consider the people from where the jobs came from. In this perspective, the net job produced is zero. It was just a matter of transferring of jobs.
Yes, of course the Government can create jobs as they employ many, many people. And a Government can also create wealth; although an extreme case, the Nazi Government created wealth for Germany by taking the gold reserves of other countries.
Wrong, as noted in numerous other posts, government jobs are a transfer of jobs from the private sector to the public jobs via taxation. Taxation is redistributing resources rather than creating because there is no market.
Government as those who distribute taxes or borrow in the name of government (for deficit spending) have the lever which determines who will work harder by their construction of the tax code, and distribution of those taxes. When they pay government contractors, (war and weapons makers) or private business (i.e., prisons), they distribute taxes to those persons. When they tax businesses, (or those persons who own businesses), they send the message to work harder, or work less hard (by giving tax cuts).
Government is simply the lever (i.e., of the faucet) that tends to create jobs, or to reduce jobs by the choices they make in the messages of stimulus or of tax fairness they choose.
To insure they work for the American people, government must know where income comes from for all in order to choose wisely, and spur the economy, or cool it down to prevent inflation.
The biggest fallacy of all political rhetoric is that government can create jobs and wealth. Fundamentally, this ultimately refers to the broken window fallacy.
Government is economically incapable of creating jobs and wealth. It is impossible because of taxation. Since government possesses no assets or wealth without coerced taxation, taxation simply reallocates money paid by taxpayers to government projects; it prevents from new investment in capital, labor, land or maybe even entrepreneurship.
It merely shifts attention and valuable resources from one industry to another.
What this reallocation of resources does is it hides the true costs of government interference in the market. Government projects assume that it only knows how to allocate resources better than consumers or businesses know how to spend or invest.
The biggest fallacy of all political rhetoric is that government can create jobs and wealth. Fundamentally, this ultimately refers to the broken window fallacy.
I assume you mean that the tax dollars that people pay could go towards paying others which means (supposedly) more jobs for those who take in the money.
It's actually a lot more complicated than that, however, because you're referring to necessary data rather than conjecture. For example, if a person is taxed and loses ten percent of his income, that is ten percent that could have paid for someone to work, right? Well, what if that ten percent funds two government jobs and if the tax didn't exist, those two jobs are gone but the person's income instead goes to pay for one job (such as an accountant). In this case the "broken window\" pays for more jobs than the unbroken one does (in reference to the tailor).
There are doubtless many permutations of this scenario, and the simple point is that without actual data, you don't know which is more efficient usage of money.
Government is economically incapable of creating jobs and wealth.
You've never heard of government jobs?
Since government possesses no assets or wealth without coerced taxation, taxation simply reallocates money paid by taxpayers to government projects; it prevents from new investment in capital, labor, land or maybe even entrepreneurship.
As mentioned above, it could be the case that government invests tax dollars more effectively so that more jobs are created by it than if the money were left alone to be invested privately.
What this reallocation of resources does is it hides the true costs of government interference in the market. Government projects assume that it only knows how to allocate resources better than consumers or businesses know how to spend or invest.
For example, if a person is taxed and loses ten percent of his income, that is ten percent that could have paid for someone to work, right? Well, what if that ten percent funds two government jobs and if the tax didn't exist, those two jobs are gone but the person's income instead goes to pay for one job (such as an accountant).
Sure, taxation provides income and an well being for a government employees, yet it is transferring wealth from those who are productive, but fundamentally, the government employee is creating anything new. They uses existing money.
The Keynesian legacy that government can reduce unemployment with large spending programs is the biggest fallacy in economics.
Government spending has three sources of misrepresented stimulus.
1. Taxation doesn't create new wealth because it only transfers wealth from one who creates new wealth.
2. Government borrowing is just as inadequate as taxation, yet at least in taxation, it is paid. It reduces investment in capital, labor and land. Consequently, this translates into fewer new factories, machines, and homes being built. Not only does this decrease in private investment slow economic growth, it results in additional unemployment in these industries.
3. The worst source of additional government spending is creating new money either by simply printing more money or lower interest rates. Thus, this monetary event always results in inflation by eroding the value of the currency.
You've never heard of government jobs?
First, how is this question?
Actually, there are 4 million federal employees and 16 million state/local employees.
As mentioned above, it could be the case that government invests tax dollars more effectively so that more jobs are created by it than if the money were left alone to be invested privately.
Government doesn't invest money. It spends or wastes. If the government is going to spend our money, it should be putting money that yields a return.shouldn't they be putting it into something that is going to make us some money?
Sometimes it does.
No, because no one entity or person is smarter than the invisible hand. The invisible hand
Sure, taxation provides income and an well being for a government employees, yet it is transferring wealth from those who are productive, but fundamentally, the government employee is creating anything new. They uses existing money.
That's true of any job creation, however. Money from one hand exchanges into another.
1. Taxation doesn't create new wealth because it only transfers wealth from one who creates new wealth.
Unless you're mining gold and silver, you're never really creating wealth but exchanging it. This holds true even if you take cheap goods and combine them to make something valuable, because your profit is traded from someone elses' pocket.
In this way taxation would simply be an alternate means of creating jobs.
2. Government borrowing is just as inadequate as taxation, yet at least in taxation, it is paid. It reduces investment in capital, labor and land. Consequently, this translates into fewer new factories, machines, and homes being built. Not only does this decrease in private investment slow economic growth, it results in additional unemployment in these industries.
Which I imagine is still a rational tradeoff compared to living in a depression.
3. The worst source of additional government spending is creating new money either by simply printing more money or lower interest rates. Thus, this monetary event always results in inflation by eroding the value of the currency.
Which goes back to my statement about gold and silver, and really any precious resource that printed money may symbolically represent.
Actually, there are 4 million federal employees and 16 million state/local employees.
So therefore the government created those jobs.
Government doesn't invest money. It spends or wastes. If the government is going to spend our money, it should be putting money that yields a return.shouldn't they be putting it into something that is going to make us some money?
So your complaint isn't that government cannot create jobs, it is that government isn't a trade market representing entrepreneurs since it operates as the police force.
No, because no one entity or person is smarter than the invisible hand. The invisible hand
I'm going to resist the urge to make a joke about the invisible hand. It will be hard.
A number of institutions which serve the public interest but are not profitable (or ought not be profitable) benefit from government subsidy. An example would be schools, where education being profit-based means it will either be more expensive (through unnecessary classes, or higher up-front costs when few alternatives exist), or it will cut corners (outdated textbooks, curricula, lower salaries). Another example would be hospitals (in a purely profit-driven system, palliatives become favoured over cures, and cures are made exceedingly expensive to dissuade their use where a repeat treatment may be used).
Put another way, just as we are smarter than natural selection and have selectively evolved life to cater towards us, we are smarter than a group acting out of self-interest and may prevent that group from ruining the state.
That's true of any job creation, however. Money from one hand exchanges into another.
This doesn't even make sense. Money exchanges from one to another when there is trade for goods or services, not for creating jobs or wealth. Jobs and wealth are created through capital, land, and labor.
Even Obama agrees with me.
"Government can’t replace -- can’t create jobs to replace the millions that we lost in the recession, but it can create the conditions for small businesses to hire more people, through steps like tax breaks," Obama said."Obama
Wow, government can't create jobs, and the best way to hire people is tax cuts.
Unless you're mining gold and silver, you're never really creating wealth but exchanging it. This holds true even if you take cheap goods and combine them to make something valuable, because your profit is traded from someone elses' pocket.
NEWSFLASH!!!!!!
The United States isn't currently on the Gold and Silver Standard, but since 1971, the gold and silver standard is gone, so your statement is moot, not to mention totally irrelevant.
What does gold and silver have any relevance to taxation in a non gold standard era? Nothing!
Which I imagine is still a rational tradeoff compared to living in a depression.
I hope you are not as dumb as this statement because you do realize that when the government borrows money, it does have to pay it back. It is not free.
Which goes back to my statement about gold and silver, and really any precious resource that printed money may symbolically represent.
This is completely and utterly moot because again, the United States is not on the gold and silver standard, thus, when you go to WalMart, you can't buy food with gold. Government printed notes are accepted along with other forms of transactions.
So therefore the government created those jobs.
Again, no, it was the transfer of wealth of those who produce. Government employees don't produce anything new. They only take away.
For example, if I grew corn, and it was 100 bushels. In this production, I created new wealth through labor, land and some capital.
All of a sudden, the leader of the town comes from and says, hey, Billy needs food, yet Billy doesn't do anything of production, so he takes 10 bushels, then Heather wants 10 bushels. Now, I only have 80 bushels to sell whereas before I had 100. Now, I have to layoff workers because there is less corn to produce.
So your complaint isn't that government cannot create jobs, it is that government isn't a trade market representing entrepreneurs since it operates as the police force.
WTF??? Government doesn't invest, it spends or wastes our money. What is so complicated about that notion?
Investment is the commitment of money or capital to purchase financial instruments or other assets to gain profitable returns in the form of interest, income, or appreciation of the value of the instrument.
An example would be schools, where education being profit-based means it will either be more expensive (through unnecessary classes, or higher up-front costs when few alternatives exist), or it will cut corners (outdated textbooks, curricula, lower salaries).
Again, I already proved that public schools are more expensive than private schools in Washington D.C. Public-$24000 per pupil to Private $14,000 per pupil
we may not be on the gold standard, however finding gold in your back yard is still equivalent to finding money, A lot of it. Also it causes each dollar bill to be worth more, since money's value is equivalent to the value of the entire set of tradable goods in a society, and gold still is considered to have inherent value.
we may not be on the gold standard, however finding gold in your back yard is still equivalent to finding money,
No, it isn't. Finding gold in your backyard is equivalent to finding gold. Gold will always have value, and always be used as a commodity to exchange goods and services; gold can be only used as a exchange commodities. Again, you can't buy food at WalMart with Gold.
Also it causes each dollar bill to be worth more, since money's value is equivalent to the value of the entire set of tradeable goods in a society, and gold still is considered to have inherent value.
Sorry, but WTF?
Anyway, When government mindlessly prints more and more money, the exchange rate for Gold increases only due to the value of the dollar note is decreasing because the money supply is increasing.
Again, gold will always have inherent value because Gold's values never decreases while government notes will.
If gold will always have a inherent value, then gold will always be exchangeable (in other words equivalent) for money, goods, or services.
Gold's value fluctuates like anything else, it isn't some magical constant. If demand for gold increases, its value/price increases, if supply increases with a constant demand its price/value decreases. Most gold isn't found in America(where I live, and was assuming you did to), Finding gold in your back yard would increase supply however it would increase the supply in America, you'll want to exchange this gold for American dollars, increasing the demand of a constant supply of dollar bills.
If gold will always have a inherent value, then gold will always be exchangeable (in other words equivalent) for money, goods, or services.
Of course, gold will not an inherent value in the exchangeable market, but it will always have inherent value as a commodity because it is valued everywhere in the world. Paper is not an commodity. It is only recognized by its citizens as a form of commodity. If not, gold would still be the commodity as a means to exchange along with tobacco, silver, platinum and many others.
Gold's value fluctuates like anything else, it isn't some magical constant
I didn't say that. I said that while the demand is high, the supply remains consistent, not constant.
Finding gold in your back yard would increase supply however it would increase the supply in America, you'll want to exchange this gold for American dollars, increasing the demand of a constant supply of dollar bills.
Yes, I know this already.
The supply of dollar bills isn't constant. It fluctuates much more than gold.
a commodity is a good for which there is demand, if there is demand for gold then there is demand to exchange something for it if the demand to acquire gold is ever going to be realized. Paper is a good for which there is demand.
Of course the supply of dollar bills are not constant, however for all practical purposes it can be considered constant for small amounts of time;.
As for my comment asking if you read capital volume one, i wanted to know how much of that vocabulary I can use.
Taxation may transfer wealth from one party(s) to another, then if the receiving party puts that money into roads(that allow for a distribution industry, or most all modern industry), A war which protects the country(and thus all the industry in it, well boasting one), or technology research agencies like Darpa and Nasa, then that party that received wealth did indeed invest that wealth and created/maintained the conditions necessary for other/more wealth.
Government borrowing may have to be paid back, but it may be at a time when a tax is less burdensome.
The invisible hand is the net force/influence of the each individual's economic influence. Capitalism allows for a few to have a much greater influence then the rest of the members in a society, democratic processes allow the other members to put checks on those highly influential members. The invisible hand can behave very stupidly, if not enough members of society are influential enough to counter what is bad for a large enough section of society. When society damages itself, well how can society operate optimally?
Taxation may transfer wealth from one party(s) to another, then if the receiving party puts that money into roads(that allow for a distribution industry, or most all modern industry), A war which protects the country(and thus all the industry in it, well boasting one), or technology research agencies like Darpa and Nasa, then that party that received wealth did indeed invest that wealth and created/maintained the conditions necessary for other/more wealth.
Regardless of where tax money is being transferred, it doesn't create jobs or wealth because it is merely shifting money from one industry to another.
Government projects assume that it only knows how to allocate resources better than consumers or businesses know how to spend or invest.
Government borrowing may have to be paid back, but it may be at a time when a tax is less burdensome.
Then, you have a huge debt. Basically, what we have now? What a mess our government has got us into.
Capitalism allows for a few to have a much greater influence then the rest of the members in a society, democratic processes allow the other members to put checks on those highly influential members.
Wrong, capitalism puts checks and balances on capitalism through competition and incentives.
Democratic and Constitutions puts highly influential members at check.
The invisible hand can behave very stupidly, if not enough members of society are influential enough to counter what is bad for a large enough section of society. When society damages itself, well how can society operate optimally?
The invisible hand is incapable of stupidity because it weeds out the ignorant and weak.
If your alternative to the invisible hand is the iron fist, you are sadly mistaken.
The transferring of wealth doesn't create wealth, but the use of wealth in a certain way does. I see no reason why government can not use the wealth it acquires in a way that creates wealth(I would argue that it has). Its the same situation when I buy something, I transferred my wealth to a company or individual, if they then use that money to increase their productivity then they have created wealth.
government projects do not assume private entities do not know how to spend their money, it assumes that the government is the only entity that will willingly or most efficiently do the project.
I would rather government spending compensate for a declining consumer spending; helping to keep cash flow up in a debt based economy then allow for the continuation of a downward spiral to a depression. The government basically did a large scale loan consolidation, and just like i would rather have one large loan with a small interest rate then multiple maxed out credit cards, I would rather have a higher tax rate later then have my bills continue to increase and my income decrease.
Capitalism naturally leads to monopolies if there isn't government regulation.
The self-justification of power is a beautiful thing isn't it?
My alternative to the invisible hand is the open one.
Truthfully, I am not going to waste any more time debating or arguing Keynesian economics or Marxism economics to classical or Austrian Economics.
I see no reason why government can not use the wealth it acquires in a way that creates wealth(I would argue that it has).
Finally, because government doesn't possess any wealth, it has to take away wealth from those with wealth; thus, it is transfer wealth. No matter how you spin it, government can't use wealth to create wealth. It is a fallacy.
Its the same situation when I buy something, I transferred my wealth to a company or individual, if they then use that money to increase their productivity then they have created wealth.
Again, Keynes multiplier effort is ineffective. Goes back to the broken window fallacy
Capitalism naturally leads to monopolies if there isn't government regulation.
I am not having this conversation again. I had it with avesde.
BUT
No, government regulation naturally leads to monopolies. This is already self evident.
It is called government monopolies. The USPS has the most embedded government regulation monopoly than other than organization or entity in the US.
It is so far embedded, it is even in the US Constitution.
Government regulation also leads to private monopolies. Government regulation limits competition by adding additional costs.
Another liberal who doesn't know what a government monopoly is.
What a surprise?
A liberal who thinks just because I can use UPS or FEDEX, there is no government monopoly. LET ME ASK THIS, when was the last time, FEDEX or UPS sent our first class mail to us. NEVER.
Government monopoly is a entity that prohibits competition by law, therefore, even in the Constitution, it mentions that the Federal Government must establish a postal service, this is only the beginning of the government monopoly of the USPS.
There is literally mountains of regulations that prohibit UPS and FEDEX from delivering First Class Mail. There is even mountains of regulations preventing you or I starting a first class mail business.
If taxation transfers wealth from citizens to the government, then the government has wealth.
The broken window fallacy is fallacious, It may be true that the broken window merely changes where money is spent, and possibly diverts money away from the growth of capital for a particular business, however it doesn't mean that the window maker can't take the money he gets and put it towards his capital or such. Capital growth may still happen, just in a different industry or area.
As for the government regulated monopolies, they exist because they are what are called "natural monopolies", it would be inefficient for multiple companies to create separate overlapping networks of pipes, wires etc. This inefficiency would add to the price and decrease service, so a monopoly with heavy government regulation would be the most effective. Such a monopoly without government regulation would be worse, since competition would be unlikely to develop then.
If taxation transfers wealth from citizens to the government, then the government has wealth.
No, without taxation, government possess no wealth. Therefore, taxation is not a form of wealth if it is coerced.
As for the government regulated monopolies, they exist because they are what are called "natural monopolies", it would be inefficient for multiple companies to create separate overlapping networks of pipes, wires etc.
The general definition of a monopoly is the result of a single seller, thus eliminating the supply.
Therefore, Natural Monopoly = Coercive Monopoly.
Government create coercive monopolies. Government claims of natural monopoly as a justification for government intervening to establish a statutory monopoly where competition is outlawed, under the claim that multiple firms providing a good or service entails more collective costs to an economy than that which would be the case if a single firm provided a good or service. This has often been done with electricity, water, telecommunications, and mail delivery.
Natural monopolies produce a lot of dead weight loss in the market.
"A coercive monopolist will tend to perform his service badly and inefficiently."
So If I rob a bank at gun point, get away with all the money and successfully launder it. Am I not wealthy?
A seller can't eliminate the supply, then they would have nothing to sell.
ok...i'll go along for now, so a natural monopoly is a Coercive monopoly(as are all monopolies), does such coercive monopolies actually decrease collective costs to an economy as judged from as much of a scientific perspective as possible?
Yes of course we all have. But where does those government jobs get their money from? Even a company that sells stuff to the government like Northrop or any other company that gets government contracts from. Where does the money flow start? It all has to be created in the private sector. None of these jobs would be created at all if it was not for complete private sector. Example of "Real Money" You have a restaurant I own insurance company. I come to your restaurant and pay you for a dinner. You have just created free market capitalism. None of that revenue you got was derived from government. You are now taxed that profit that you just made, most times 30%. Both you and I have business that hire and create jobs where money is created. Non of which we get any money from government because we are private if we did receive money from government we would be getting those monies from taxes which you just paid on when you made profit when i ate at your restaurant. That is the only way government can survive is by the independent business owner private sector with that money being created nothing else would be possible.
there would be no government jobs there would be no NASA. Look to any country that has overwhelming government jobs when you do you will see those countries have no currency strength and mostly impoverished because they do not have a healthy private sector in which they can take from in taxes and spend. so what do they do countries that have weak private they print out their own money more and more of their own money that they don't have to collect from private sector. Eventually what happens is that other countries like Germany, China, Brazil end up have better bonds and currency rate and become more powerful with what they can buy. I can go on and on but that would be a whole lesson plan. Let's hope that they reduce spending so that our currency doesn't keep dropping and commodities like gas, cotton, copper keep going through the roof. I'm not going to like to pay $4 or 5$ a gallon if that happens.
But where does those government jobs get their money from? Even a company that sells stuff to the government like Northrop or any other company that gets government contracts from. Where does the money flow start? It all has to be created in the private sector.
I see no important difference between a government job and a private sector job in terms of income.
A government job receives income through taxes, which are a charge for a service (government, meaning military protection, police, schools, roads, water, etc.). That money provides jobs for people to oversee these services (military jobs, road jobs, etc.).
A private business provides a service (food for example). The money for that service funds the job to provide it.
Look to any country that has overwhelming government jobs when you do you will see those countries have no currency strength and mostly impoverished because they do not have a healthy private sector in which they can take from in taxes and spend.
If the private sector is all business owners and no employees, then it will become impoverished too.
Both systems require a balance.
Let's hope that they reduce spending so that our currency doesn't keep dropping and commodities like gas, cotton, copper keep going through the roof. I'm not going to like to pay $4 or 5$ a gallon if that happens.
I've been suggesting reduced military spending, but that seems to be a sacred cow. Imagine how much better our cities and airways would be if we used that money to update our infrastructure and install solar power on city roofs. We also wouldn't be... what was it last, 13 trillion? in debt.
I see no important difference between a government job and a private sector job in terms of income.
(government military protection, police, schools, roads, water, etc.)
All of which could be privatized and already are either by contracting or outsourcing.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET THIS THROUGH YOUR TINY LITTLE BRAIN?
Government possesses no assets without coerced taxation, which means that the government PUTS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD if you don't pay. Therefore, it is impossible for it to create jobs or wealth because it takes from others. For example, Robin Hood is like the government, he didn't create new wealth, he transferred it from taking from the rich. NO NEW NET WEALTH WAS CREATED. Therefore, after taking money from private citizens, it is transferring potential PRIVATE SECTOR jobs to public.
The difference between government services is forced payment and business services are voluntarily.
If the private sector is all business owners and no employees, then it will become impoverished too.
There is no proof of that. Whereas overwhelming government is overt in democracies like India.
I've been suggesting reduced military spending, but that seems to be a sacred cow.
Who isn't?
how much better our cities and airways would be if we used that money to update our infrastructure and install solar power on city roofs
Rather imagine how many new long term jobs would have been instead of your short term infrastructure jobs with a limited budget.
We also wouldn't be... what was it last, 13 trillion? in debt.
That was only created by the LIBERAL KEYNESIANS and the CONSERVATIVE KEYNESIANS. That is why they are the REPUBICRATS.
All of which could be privatized and already are either by contracting or outsourcing.
Coca-cola could be state-owned, along with oil, electricity, and 7/11 Mini Marts. So?
Government possesses no assets without coerced taxation, which means that the government PUTS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD if you don't pay.
Coca-cola possesses no assets without coerced payment, which means that the police put a gun to your head if you take a Cola without paying for it... (What, are you trying to argue that living in America, you ought to have Military protection, Government protection and representation, a legal system, courts, roads, sewers, schools, etc. all for free? You use these services simply by existing within the borders and becoming a citizen).
Therefore, it is impossible for it to create jobs or wealth because it takes from others.
Coca-cola doesn't create jobs or wealth. It takes wealth from customers and jobs from the state.
For example, Robin Hood is like the government, he didn't create new wealth, he transferred it from taking from the rich. NO NEW NET WEALTH WAS CREATED.
You just describe economics in a nutshell. New wealth is (almost) never created Ex Nilho. It comes from somewhere else.
What made Microsoft rich? Not new wealth. It simply made these floppy disks with patterns of bits really attractive to customers who gave the company their money. It made those disks worth something due to demand.
Does government make wealth? Well, it does print money, and it does operate in the world economy, which changes the value of our money. However, that value has to come from somewhere, like natural resources.
Basically speaking, most wealth comes from trading, not creating. You could create wealth if you exploit a natural resource which is limited, because then you are adding something of intrinsic value to the market (instead of value that comes purely through demand and capital).
There is no proof of that. Whereas overwhelming government is overt in democracies like India.
It's a simple math problem. If everyone is a business owner, who will do the work? There is a number of employees available, a number of jobs per business and an ideal number of businesses which perfectly utilises the employees.
Rather imagine how many new long term jobs would have been instead of your short term infrastructure jobs with a limited budget.
We lack them because businesses moved them overseas. Thanks capitalism!
Coca-cola could be state-owned, along with oil, electricity, and 7/11 Mini Marts. So?
You would like that. State control of everything.
Your love for Big Brother is strong.
(What, are you trying to argue that living in America, you ought to have Military protection, Government protection and representation, a legal system, courts, roads, sewers, schools, etc. all for free? You use these services simply by existing within the borders and becoming a citizen).
Can you get any more irrational in your responses?
I must not be making myself clear, if I am advocating the private sector, then
all of those services I am willing to pay for in the private sector based on my needs. I am not asking anything for free.
Where did I say that I wanted for services for free? NOWHERE.
Plus, I already said like a million times I am willing to pay for government military, police and courts.
Coca-cola doesn't create jobs or wealth. It takes wealth from customers and jobs from the state.
Wow, this really shows your lack of understanding the difference private sector and public sector.
New wealth is (almost) never created Ex Nilho. It comes from somewhere else.
If capitalism doesn't create new wealth, where does it come from?
If you say government, this really only discredits you every sense of the imagination because government doesn't create wealth, it only takes.
What made Microsoft rich?
Actually, Microsoft brought all sorts of wealth. First, 90,000 jobs were created since the birth of Microsoft, therefore, when a job is created, it is new wealth. How? because it added new goods and services; therefore, there is more consumption. More consumption means wealth. Second, Microsoft technologically has advanced our society beyond any imagination with its competitors. Third, it is inspires intellectual minds.
Well, it does print money, and it does operate in the world economy, which changes the value of our money
I laughed when I seen this sentence.
Apparently, inflation has never crossed the path of intellectually inept mind.
Government can print all money it wants, but the more it prints, the more it becomes worthless.
HERE IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOUR IDEA OF WEALTH COMES ABOUT?
People in power like you who think government creates wealth.---->Hyperinflation
The government doesn't need to be involved in the value of money.
For thousands of years, commodities were used as a means to exchange goods and services between parties. Ex. Gold, Silver, Tobacco and even stones.
Trading is not wealth. Trade is an exchange. It is commerce or transaction. It is a form mechanism of capitalism, but wealth is creating nothing into something.
You could create wealth if you exploit a natural resource which is limited, because then you are adding something of intrinsic value to the market (instead of value that comes purely through demand and capital).
Again, I must laugh.
This only shows your inept knowledge of economics.
The study of economics is analyzing the scarcity of natural resources, and how to apply it in the most efficient matter and capitalism is the best tool.
If everyone is a business owner, who will do the work?
Gee, the business owner.... Most small businesses the work is done by the owner.
We lack them because businesses moved them overseas. Thanks capitalism!
Can you get any more irrational in your responses?
I must not be making myself clear, if I am advocating the private sector, then
all of those services I am willing to pay for in the private sector based on my needs. I am not asking anything for free.
Those services are presently provided by the state. Living as a citizen within the state means you owe the government payment in the form of taxes. It is not coerced by a gun unfairly, you owe your government that tax money. It is no more unfair than if you walked out of a store without paying for for something, and store security stopped you.
Where did I say that I wanted for services for free? NOWHERE.
Plus, I already said like a million times I am willing to pay for government military, police and courts.
You and your kind constantly complain about taxes and insinuate that taxes are theft. It is as though you expect military, police, courts, etc. to operate for free.
Wow, this really shows your lack of understanding the difference private sector and public sector.
So Coca-cola is free? Or do you give them money for a product?
If capitalism doesn't create new wealth, where does it come from?
It trades hands.
If you say government, this really only discredits you every sense of the imagination because government doesn't create wealth, it only takes.
Governments create wealth through international trade agreements, state economic policies, and so on.
Actually, Microsoft brought all sorts of wealth. First, 90,000 jobs were created since the birth of Microsoft, therefore, when a job is created, it is new wealth. How? because it added new goods and services; therefore, there is more consumption. More consumption means wealth. Second, Microsoft technologically has advanced our society beyond any imagination with its competitors. Third, it is inspires intellectual minds.
Wealth traded hands. Microsoft created a product which everybody wanted, it created demand.
Demand can act like wealth, but because resources are limited, what it actually does is transfer more of a limited resource into the hands of somebody.
I laughed when I seen this sentence.
Your continual grammatical mistakes make me think you are an immigrant. South or Central American perhaps?
Trading is not wealth. Trade is an exchange. It is commerce or transaction. It is a form mechanism of capitalism, but wealth is creating nothing into something.
We already discussed this. Demand. However what you seem to not appreciate is the finite nature of our resources which give our states an intrinsic amount of value (in their natural, rare, resources). If you base an entire economy on demand instead of concrete wealth in rare resources, you end up with inflation because demand can be for anything (including that which is limitless). In other words, if there is high demand for that which is limitless, and demand is all that keeps the economy afloat, then you're constantly adding "wealth" into the economy which is intrinsically worthless (limitless things have no intrinsic value), and there is increasing inflation.
Again, I must laugh.
This only shows your inept knowledge of economics.
Seeing as you are basically a capitalist advocate of near-anarchy, who advocates child labour and sweatshops, and thinks tax is the same as theft... I'll take this as a sign that my views on economics are in the right direction.
The study of economics is analyzing the scarcity of natural resources, and how to apply it in the most efficient matter and capitalism is the best tool.
Apparently not.
Gee, the business owner.... Most small businesses the work is done by the owner.
i agree with you in reducing military spending. When it comes to America I'm somewhat of an isolationist. We shouldn't be dealing in other countries affairs. Yes a job is a job I'm not saying Big government is all bad it's when they start to reach outside the boundaries and stick their hands even deeper in the private sector that. I have a minor in econ in college i thought for a while i would want to be an economist private sector is the most important thing to have in order to have a strong economy from private sector it makes all things possible especially government jobs. The people who work for federal and state would have incomes if it weren't for the private sector.
Unless the government agency charges a fee or service charge, it is taxation, which takes from the general population, and DARPA and NASA are not investments, but rather expenditures with limited budgets. Those could easily be privatized where investment is potentially unlimited.
Taxation can easily be conceived as a fee for services already rendered by the government, and their mandatory nature could be justified if these services are essential to the operation of society.
You can't invest a infinite amount of money and you practically and realistically can not get a infinite profit from investment. further more money you invest is an expenditure, however it is an expenditure that could potentially pay for itself if you sell what you received at a later date.
Darpa and Nasa has resulted in technological innovation that has dramatically altered the economy and our ways of life. This alteration has resulted in a increase in the middle class and in the quality of life, how were Darpa and Nasa not investments?
Taxation can easily be conceived as a fee for services already rendered by the government, and their mandatory nature could be justified if these services are essential to the operation of society.
Fee-for-service is a standard business model where services are unbundled and paid for separately, so basically, the last time I checked a fee for a service was voluntary, and taxation is by no means voluntary, it is threaten with jail time.
You can't invest a infinite amount of money and you practically and realistically can not get a infinite profit from investment. further more money you invest is an expenditure, however it is an expenditure that could potentially pay for itself if you sell what you received at a later date.
First, WTF?
Second, investment is the commitment of money or capital to purchase financial instruments or other assets to gain profitable returns in the form of interest, income, or appreciation of the value of the instrument.
Darpa and Nasa has resulted in technological innovation that has dramatically altered the economy and our ways of life. This alteration has resulted in a increase in the middle class and in the quality of life, how were Darpa and Nasa not investments
The technological innovation of DARPA and NASA could have easily been discovered in private companies probably even greater results. Private investment has always been more beneficial to society than government spending.
Government is incapable of investment because it possess no assets without forced taxation.
There is no difference between "commitment of money or capital" and the sell of money or capital for another thing(ie the financial instrument), the profitable returns comes from selling the financial instrument after it has became relatively more valuable to what it was originally bought with.
What private individual or entity would have enough motivation or capital/money to do what NASA did?
Even with forced taxation, the government still has assets. I see no reason why a government can't invest. For example if I rob a bank at gun point, escape and launder the money; I am very capable of investing it.
what about the investment by the government in darpa or nasa?
They would never exist if there wasn't free market private sector money that they take by someone in taxes and give it to them. I'm not saying Government is bad for doing these things, obviously this is a good thing to have these and jobs being there. It's that the more private free money "Real Money" created on the free markets is the driving force the more we can sustain. when we get to a level where Government jobs is almost 50% of private sector we are at a turning point where it is unsustainable, and we end up like Greece eventually. That's why the deficit is a big issue right now, when those bonds come home to roost we are going to either cut spending or tax the shit out of people and business's more. Let's hope that they cut spending because if they decide to go after business more they will just move themselves to another more pro-business friendly country, which is already happening now. It's a scary scenario high taxes have never done nothing but create more poverty. Main reason is that rich people don't care where they live when a place becomes to much for them they get up and take themselves and employees to other states and countries.
If you break it down to it's essence every job created comes from private sector. Yes our government gives money to some companies like NASA and DARPA but that's money the government takes from private sector in revenue they take it and spend it and it creates jobs but the jobs from theses companies are the direct trickle down effect that comes from companies that are not government related. Every job truly created comes from non-government jobs. That is a fact you can google economics and the overwhelming majority of econ scholars would agree.
The private sector takes innovations not possible in the private sector at that time from the public sector and uses it to create jobs, thus many jobs may very well be the direct trickle down effect that comes from government related research.
economists have a general image of being narrow minded to me, I don't care for their personal opinions I care about the validity, soundness and testability of their theories. Appeals to authority have little effect on me, and I will challenge a theory till I am content with it.
Well then how did the great depression end? Was it not because of programs under FDR such as the CCC? What you are arguing is that Hoover's decision to leave the economy alone would yield better results than FDR's New Deal. Well, historically, that is extremely incorrect, since Hoover himself admitted his mistake and though fiscally conservative, enacted changes that led to the U.S. government spending money to ease suffering in the Great Depression
The Great Depression ended because of government spending subsided and private investment ensued.
Government spending is not economically necessary to end a downturn or depression; it is economic poison. In today’s economic context, the antidote is first and foremost a massive reduction in government spending preferably tax cuts are desirable, but only once our deficit is cut, which means fix the entitlement programs.
What you are arguing is that Hoover's decision to leave the economy alone would yield better results than FDR's New Deal?
Precisely, with the huge explosion of government spending, deficit spending protracted the Depression.
Well, historically, that is extremely incorrect, since Hoover himself admitted his mistake and though fiscally conservative, enacted changes that led to the U.S. government spending money to ease suffering in the Great Depression.
Where is the proof that Hoover recanted his guilt of faulty policies?
The Great Depression ended because of government spending subsided and private investment ensued.
Private investment was what caused the great depression in the first place.
Government spending is not economically necessary to end a downturn or depression; it is economic poison. In today’s economic context, the antidote is first and foremost a massive reduction in government spending preferably tax cuts are desirable, but only once our deficit is cut, which means fix the entitlement programs.
So we instead let the private market fix the depression that it created... a bit like using the same needle which put a hole into the inflatable mattress - to inflate it back up and then you have a sore back from lying on that now deflated mattress all night waiting until the next morning to take it back to the store, but the receipt was in your other pants pocket and you have to argue with customer service about that mattress being the same model that is only sold at their stores. You get it exchanged eventually, but after the store manager comes in, and now you have a nice mattress again.
Private investment was what caused the great depression in the first place.
Wrong, first, it was the creation of the Federal Reserve. Then, as many government entities, it believes that it can centrally plan an entire economy by manipulating interest rates and the money supply.
Therefore, the Federal Reserve mismanaged the economy by manipulating the money supply.
So we instead let the private market fix the depression that it created
The economy rebounded after the massive government spending from 1933 to 1945.
Wrong, first, it was the creation of the Federal Reserve. Then, as many government entities, it believes that it can centrally plan an entire economy by manipulating interest rates and the money supply.
The stock market was corrupted by insider trading and collusion. If it continued after the great depression, we frankly have no idea if we would have ever left that state because there would always be some group seeking wealth by taking advantage of everyone else.
The stock market was corrupted by insider trading and collusion. If it continued after the great depression, we frankly have no idea if we would have ever left that state because there would always be some group seeking wealth by taking advantage of everyone else.
That government school education and indoctrination is working perfectly.
This also the reason the government blames for the current crisis.
The government are masters of the universe in passing the buck.
The government can't create jobs in the private sector because companies have to do the hiring. The government can't create wealth because it is not infinitely rich. To keep "creating wealth" it would have to generate revenue, most likely from taxes.
no of course,but sometimes......for e.g the indian govt,select a govt. job....after few days..u'll feel wht the thing i am?????am i a robot?????
they will use u like a broom...if u work well.one of my uncle came 2 india ...got a govt. job...and now....
he became bald....his bp rose higher....he started singing and dancing in his bathroom....at last he came 2 canada and now he is working in a private company,he is looking better than b4.that's why be careful......govt. job sucks!!!!!!
Government can if they stand back and not mingle and choke business with too much regulation and taxes. Which is what Obama wants and is why he is going to get served Nov 2 he is such an ideologue that even then it won't sink in why he lost his majority.
The problem right now is the lack of leadership in Washington and at the front of it starts with Obama. He is so unenthusiastic on his speeches. I remember the great president Ronald Reagan when he would speak the whole nation would watch him with optimism because he believed that each individual new best what was good for them and believed in the American dream. Ronald Reagan at the beginning of his presidency had over 10% unemployment ski high interest rates in the high teens and cold war with Russia. At the end was low interest rates unemployment to 5.3% and was the main reason for the end of the Cold war and the Berlin wall coming down. In his presidency over16 million new jobs and a huge expansion of personal wealth. He also did this with a Democratic majority both House and Senate. He also was the reason why people have the mortgage tax deduction on homes. If Obama wanted to learn how to be a good president he should take a hard look at him.
I guess the point of all this is that Obama plays the blame game and he has no reason too he had both majority in both houses but because of his weak leadership and policies and his hardcore anti-colonialist ideology he has separated himself from the average American and his own party. It's not just republicans voting against him I know alot of Democrats who are voting against their own party come this midterm.
I'm a part of that I voted for Obama and like many others we feel that we have been severely lied too about what he was going to do and that was focus on the economy with a laser like focus. Instead he wants to tax those who create jobs the small business anybody making 250k a year. Those people who make that much by the way are usually owners of a small business with 4 employees so it is absolutely ludicrous to think that this is good. It's so obvious to those out there and we will make our correction come Nov 2nd to stop all of his madness.
if Americans leader can't stop shipping our good jobs overseas then we are doomed! Americans cant continue to make ends meet or put food on the table by: Jim cutting Sally's lawn, Bob washing Teddy's business suits, or Fred removing dog poop from Sally's lawn!As time goes by, slowly but surely The rich get richer and the poor get more poor!!We have to manufactore things here in America to maintain a strong middle class!
Government can not create anything without first taking it from someone else. This is known as wealth transfer. But it is not creating any new wealth only redistributing wealth which someone else has created. Any job a gov't makes removes the potential jobs in the private sector to pay for that job! So the net jobs is a loss of 3 jobs to each one made by government. Plus the tax share of the jobs left now goes up! Government should never think about getting into the job or wealth business!
Government creates "jobs" and "wealth." They give unemployed men jobs hitting bricks with eating utensils and pay them for it so that they can say "Look, unemployment is down and GDP is up! See, government does work!"
Firstly lets split this question into the following two for better analysis:
1. Can government crate wealth?
2. Can government create jobs?
Answer to first question:
Well before we can even start answering this question we must first solve the following conundrum:
What creates wealth? From where does wealth come from?
Luckily for us economic science solved this conundrum already. - The wealth comes from the more efficient use (or in other words from better utilization, or in yet another more economic jargon better allocation) of scarce resources.
This and only this creates wealth.
Thus in order to find out if government can create wealth we cannot just look if government employees can combine the factors of production in order to create something what has some value.
Just building some building or providing some service is not an act of wealth creation itself.
In order to consider output of particular combination of production factors as an addition to the wealth of our society we must first consider the following:
Does the value of this product or service outweighs the cost of production?
But this is little tricky. We do not measure costs in money in economics. The true cost of anything is always paid in opportunities or in another words the cost of anything is always measured in its opportunity cost.
In short opportunity cost can be illustrated by following example:
If you can choose only one from two investments which are in every aspect equal except for their yield such as:
Investment A yield in dollars 1000
Involvement B yield in dollars 999
If you choose B you will be in economic loss of 1 dollar.
Your benefit is 999 dollars but your opportunity cost is 1000. You are in economic loss.
If you choose A your benefit is 1000 and your opportunity cost is 999 so you have an 1 dollar economic profit or in other words you created a 1 dollar worth of wealth.
Insofar, in order for government to create a wealth, its representatives must not just manage to create something new or something profitable or valuable but to create something which outweigh all opportunity costs associated with it.
It is not sufficient to show that police, welfare and so on have value. Of course all of this has some value. But is value of those services an other things provided by government higher than their opportunity costs?
Economic science again already given us answer. Here is a long story short:
In all areas where there are no market failures or I should better say failures to have a market the answer is clear no. In this case government cannot allocate scarce resources more efficiently than private sector.
In a few areas where market failures such as negative or positive externalities or excessive market power are present on could argue IN THEORY that government can produce wealth, PROVIDED that it can solve these market failures more efficiently as a private sector itself can.
Thus yes there is theoretical possibility that for example:
Under assumptions that education yields positive externality (which we can really only assume) subsidizing education could lead to more efficient allocation of scarce resources provided that the opportunity cost of this subsidy (dead-weight loss from taxation and transfers which enabled this subsidy etc etc, list of all opportunity cost could go on and on) is lower than the benefit from this positive externality (which so far we cannot measure, it can be only estimated at best, if there even is a positive externality) government can create a wealth, provided that this positive externality could not be subsidized more efficiently from private sources.
So yes in theory government in some rare cases might be able to actually create a wealth but we cannot measure it so far and until we will be able to measure it we can only hypothesize on whether government can create wealth.
In all those cases in which government cannot allocate, or I should better say help people to allocate, our scarce resources more efficiently, it actually destroys wealth.
Thus just this Econ 101 concepts shows that things are much more complicated as people who are not trained economic professionals often think (BTW. It is sad that Econ is not aught in schools as much as literature or history etc.).
Now to the second question:
Can government create jobs?
Answer is simple. Yes it can.
Even digging holes in middle of the dessert and then filling them again is a job.
Even jumping on one leg can be a job.
So yes government can create jobs.
But question should be rather if government can crate a jobs which are efficient. Jobs which are not efficient are only a dead-weight for the country's economy and those actually destroy wealth should not even be created. The whole society is actually better off without such inefficient jobs.
In order to answer question whether government can create jobs which are efficient read the question one again. The answer is exactly same.
There is a hypothetical possibility that government can crate efficient job in some rare case that there are market failures or rather failures to have a functioning market in some labor markets present, but there is no way to measure it.
So to sum it up can government create wealth and jobs? The answer is that there is no way to measure it. In theory it could, but the real life shows that governments rather destroy wealth and create only inefficient jobs.
However, we can for sure tell that private sector can and is creating wealth and efficient jobs.
The general idea of creating jobs and wealth is about efficiency but importantly it is productivity. It is the premise that by this job existing it increases the standard of living for the individual and the economy. Government jobs are unproductive because these jobs destroy wealth by consumption due to the fact that money was transferred only from one hand to the other. Nothing was exchanged in the process where no money, labor or capital was previously engaged prior to the transfer.
